I wouldn't say that you made it up but you are wrong. Our goalscorers have been in the norm and there hasn't been any particular over or under performance.
Erik ten Hag | Currently unemployed
- Thread starter Panther
- Start date
I wouldn't say that you made it up but you are wrong. Our goalscorers have been in the norm and there hasn't been any particular over or under performance.
I’m not wrong
To add we have scored 0-1 goal in 26 games the entire season. Out of 42 games.
So in about 65% of matches we’ve played, we’ve scored 0-1 goals.
We are not a team who creates great chances on the whole.
Stats are fine but as I say you must look deeper. To suggest we’ve not been hampered by losing over half our forwards is incorrect
I'm all for testing new coaches, but the Eredivisie is no standard to measure a coaches quality. I think there is a greater than 50% chance that this will not work out. It should be done, just don't get your hopes up too much.
I think we’d have scored a handful more goals if Greenwood hadn’t happened and won a few more matches. But it would be insignificant in terms of the amount of goals we score but perhaps significant to results. We have Ronaldo and Sancho, we’d only have seen Greenwood regularly. Martial I don’t think would’ve played much and Cavani never plays much.
We certainly wouldn’t have scored 20 more goals because we don’t create many great chances throughout 90 minutes
Which of the players you’ve mentioned are massively above the level of Ronaldo and Sancho?
We have a high level of draws that we’d have converted in to wins in my opinion. More wins = increases in morale and performance.
The team is fragile as we know but I’m confident we’d have had enough for top 4
you need to look at the bigger picture as I say. A packed new year schedule and we were having to run those same players into the ground.
You can't look deeper than use thousands of goal scoring opportunities and their results as a point of reference. Your view is the one that is looking at the surface. We weren't creating more or enough chances with the players that you listed and we haven't really underperformed since these players disappeared either.
Edit: In fact it's worth pointing out that one of our issue includes these players, Greenwood and Martial weren't creating chances and were underperforming in that department.
Possibly….we’ll never know. I think we’d have won a couple of more games at least. In any case let’s hope this season is the last season where we are such a mediocre team and it gets better from here.
In ETH we trust !
A really ignorant question from me because I haven't properly watched Ajax outside of some CL games.
But how would ETHs approach differ in training and tactics on the pitch to someone like Bielsa?
Ive read the insightful posts from others and the tifo vids etc. They all point to similar themes of retraining certain positions, pressing very high and players filling two different roles sometimes Mid game. One worrying down point of this is fear that defending can be too chaotic. The tifo or athletic vid even said if ETHs press is beat then they're carved open. This was basically Leeds too.
Ive seen Ajax defence look at a bit of a shambles in some vids but also see much more unforced silly mistakes just like Leeds. Also the high energy press is also a bit similar.
The worry here is obvious - Bielsa capitulated. I am sure the knowledgeable fans will tell me they are different in approach to the game but I am curious into how.
But how would ETHs approach differ in training and tactics on the pitch to someone like Bielsa?
Ive read the insightful posts from others and the tifo vids etc. They all point to similar themes of retraining certain positions, pressing very high and players filling two different roles sometimes Mid game. One worrying down point of this is fear that defending can be too chaotic. The tifo or athletic vid even said if ETHs press is beat then they're carved open. This was basically Leeds too.
Ive seen Ajax defence look at a bit of a shambles in some vids but also see much more unforced silly mistakes just like Leeds. Also the high energy press is also a bit similar.
The worry here is obvious - Bielsa capitulated. I am sure the knowledgeable fans will tell me they are different in approach to the game but I am curious into how.
It’s clear the group have stopped playing and morale is low. This has impacted on other things as I say.
I’m not even arguing that this isn’t an issue, it clearly is, but I’m saying the lack of finishers is what’s ruined top 4 in my opinion as we’d have had enough to scrape in and go a bit further in the cups.
Again, that is not supported by advanced stats, there hasn't actually been a difference. We simply don't create enough good chances.
So you don’t think it’s made a difference?
That's not particularly tragic, we are still 4th or 5th in the league. If we are being a serious for one second, United aren't entertaining but we aren't bad and we aren't underperforming or unlucky either. All our stats confirm each others, we are 5th in terms of xG, 4th in terms of big chances missed behind City, Liverpool and Tottenham, in terms of shots per game we are 5th, shots on target 5th, key passes 4th and total goals 6th. And the last one is due to West Ham outperforming their expected goals by 4 goals.
I know that it hasn't, everything single stats tell you that it hasn't and that we are where we are supposed to be. We have had the same issue for years, not enough chances created to join the other PL top teams.
This doesn’t really make sense. If we are where we’re supposed to be as we’ve been exactly the same for years then why did we finish so much higher last year and the year before? The idea that having Elanga playing instead of Greenwood or Sancho playing instead of one of the most productive wide players in the EPL with previous Rashford just seems wrong. Of course having far less productive players in the team correlates to less production.
To be fair, the same applies to Liverpool, City and just about every team that adopts the high press. The counter is that with better players, you reduce the number of turnovers by being better in possession.
I can see finishing outside the top 4 this season will, as well as the obvious disadvantages and disappointment, offer Eric a few advantages. Achieving and cementing a top 4 place next season will be seen as an improvement, moulding the team into a cohesive unit to achieve this success in both the league and cups will be seen as an improvement. Given the current state of the squad and club in general this is no easy thing to do. However, I am looking forward with excitement to how this will unfold, I know this won’t be done quickly or easily, but for now I dream of us evolving into a footballing force again and I will enjoy the journey with all its ups and downs.
I already mentioned it. Last year we outperformed our xG by 9 goals which isn't really sustainable.
You are reading way too much into raw useless data. xG isn’t showing, for instance, balls into the box that the statue up front hasn’t moved to get to and easily gets cut out. Or even when a player ludicrously takes a touch due to lack of confidence and loses the ball without getting a shot away.
That's actually what xG does it's advanced stat based on context, it's not a raw data.
That paints a better picture ! I do agree with the point you have made regarding our players and the over exaggeration of their mentalities. I think a fair few players will look a whole lot better in a better structure.
I know it’s not purely Gary Neville but he seems to implode whenever we have a run of bad results. Oles first season the group of players were hard to like...12 months later he liked mostly the same group...then we are back to them all being the worst group of players mentally ever assembled.
I think it’s more a lack of structure and direction that’s killed us. Some players will go, some will come in but ultimately we need to get the manager right.
Wrong. xG measures the probability of a shot going in, meaning it’s worthless when a shot wasn’t made for whatever reason.
Stats are very useful in the right hands. Using it incorrectly makes it completely worthless.
It's not a raw data. And if you couldn't shoot for some reason than it's not a good chance which means that you didn't create a good chance.
The main difference I'd say is that Bielsa's set up is strictly man for man, while Ajax attempt to manufacture good counterpressing situations by using minimum width in a lot of scenarios. Basically, their team can press as a unit straight after losing the ball because they're all so close together that it can suffocate counter attacks.
Ajax use a pretty fluid midfield, with players taking turns occupying 6 or 8 positions, but I don't think we'd get away with that in England irrespective of the personnel. That might be an area where Ten Hag will have to adapt.
What if someone decides to pass when they should have shot. What if their touch was poor but they were through on goal? Both of those situations are good chances being created.
If you roll a ball across the face of the goal that’s a big chance, and if nobody gets on the end of it then you’ve missed a big chance. Which, would count as a 0.0 from xG. It’s an incredibly flawed system that is some way away from being corrected to be fit for purpose to be used in the way it currently is, including by yourself here.
Those are chances that will be missed but it's missed for everyone. At not point would I suggest that xG is perfect which is why I initially put has caveat whether @TheReligion valued it. But it's still a strong indicator that is supported by all the other stats linked to scoring goals. If people want to lean on their feelings instead of using the best tools that we have than it's fair enough.
I used it to support my observation, I never told you that it was flawless. TheReligion used his observations and feelings, I did the same and added advandced stats to support my view. If you think that I wrong for doing so then fair enough.
Thats insightful thanks. Yeah on thr last part, my worry is thd unknown on adapting to something different.
It’s more that you said ‘if you couldn't shoot for some reason than it's not a good chance which means that you didn't create a good chance.’ Which is a weird metric. Obviously XG is useful, but to then say if you don’t shoot then obviously a good chance wasn’t created is just patently untrue.
You heard the man he claiming he not our best player, not even sure what metrics could prove someone else is clearly better than him even with the poor season he is having.
If i am correct xG also doesnt account the individual player who takes the shot right ? I mean there is obviously a difference between Ronaldo and Wan Bissaka having 1v1 with the keeper shooting from the same spot
Correct. Used in the correct context xG can be very useful, but at the moment it’s often spouted and then repeated by people who use it as the be all and end all, rather than as part of a much broader picture.
As somebody who spends a lot of time around data it’s really frustrating to see and hear all the time in football because it’s so misused.
Okay, fair enough. If you could shoot for some reason than it was likely not a good chance.
Sorry you think he’s been our best player this season? You think he was our best player from January onwards last season? I mean fair enough if you do but it’s not a hot take to say he hasn’t been.
But this still doesn’t hold true. The exact same chance can be 0.8/0.9 xG in one game and 0.0 the next because, say, the striker isn’t mobile. Or just nobody got into the position. It’s still a good chance.