RAWK Goes Into Lockdown 2017/20-18 Edition | LOLis Karius

Status
Not open for further replies.
[QUOTE="montpelier, post: 21490818, member: 62740"
We've got to hope that we can keep all of our attacking players fit because we're going to have to score 2 or 3 more than the opposition to win.
Click to expand...

]I know they're not great at the back...[/QUOTE]
Surely you only have to score 1 more than the opposition to win? :confused:
 
But they don't mention the foul from Salah in the build up to their equaliser against Sevilla...
 
montpelier said:
here's our expected goal map for today.... we outshot them 2.22XG-0.97XG. And although we were awful against City we did concede 2.57XG, not 5. So that's three games in a row where the opposition have scored against us at an unsustainable rate.
Click to expand...

Wtf is this?:lol:
 
Rob said:
I might remember wrong, but weren't Hummels and Schmelzer far better than Matip/Lovren/Moreno? Wasn't Hummels considered one of the best CBs in the world?
Click to expand...

Probably been answered a thousand times already this evening but yes, Hummels was/is one of the best defenders in the world at various point she of his career.
 
spwd said:
Wtf is this?:lol:
Click to expand...

is the right answer

from what I can tell - it's an analysis of how many goals 'should' have been scored

according to the quality of the chance that has been converted or missed

every goalscoring attempt has a fraction of a goal value assigned to it, 30 yard shot = 0.22, 8 yard free header = 0.6 maybe - add them all together & that's your xG figure, innit - :D (expected goals, I presume)

it seems to disregard the significance of the ball going into the net, which is rather clever, I thought, :wenger:
 
montpelier said:
here's our expected goal map for today.... we outshot them 2.22XG-0.97XG. And although we were awful against City we did concede 2.57XG, not 5. So that's three games in a row where the opposition have scored against us at an unsustainable rate.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's sustainable with that defense, though.
 
Bet January can't come soon enough for Emre Can so he can sign that pre-contract with Juve. :smirk:
 
RAWK said:
I knew we'd feck this up when I thought a mirror in Next was an entrance to another room, continued to say "after you" to my own fecking reflection and walked straight into the fecking thing after I got fed up of waiting for the cnut to move.
Click to expand...
 
It seems Keita will fit in very well with his future teammates. Terrible, terrible tackle.



Around 0:50, he tackled his own teammate as well, loses the ball and it led to the goal for the opponents. Welcome to Liverpool, Keita!
 
montpelier said:
is the right answer

from what I can tell - it's an analysis of how many goals 'should' have been scored

according to the quality of the chance that has been converted or missed

every goalscoring attempt has a fraction of a goal value assigned to it, 30 yard shot = 0.22, 8 yard free header = 0.6 maybe - add them all together & that's your xG figure, innit - :D (expected goals, I presume)

it seems to disregard the significance of the ball going into the net, which is rather clever, I thought, :wenger:
Click to expand...
Wow, that's some pretty advanced stuff. We could have used this science after we missed all those chances against Stoke and Burnley last year.:) We probably would have got a 100xg or whatever.
 
Fener1907 said:
It's like observing the global warming patterns. They just keep defying our expectations, except this makes for good fun as the planet crumbles around us.
Click to expand...
:lol: Decline deniers, ignoring all the statistical evidence.
 
On their match thread some Liverpool fan gave some reality checks to other fans and got sharply cut off :lol:
 
montpelier said:
is the right answer

from what I can tell - it's an analysis of how many goals 'should' have been scored

according to the quality of the chance that has been converted or missed

every goalscoring attempt has a fraction of a goal value assigned to it, 30 yard shot = 0.22, 8 yard free header = 0.6 maybe - add them all together & that's your xG figure, innit - :D (expected goals, I presume)

it seems to disregard the significance of the ball going into the net, which is rather clever, I thought, :wenger:
Click to expand...
Weighted analysis is actually a standard application of statitics.

I wonder what the rates / weights are based on. Youd have to have the statistics of overall shots in 18 yard box to goals actually scored for the weight to actually mean anything. You could do similar for the actual player. But youd need a shit load of data and a very good statistical model to apply to the dataset.

But he could be on to something there...
 
Green_Red said:
Weighted analysis is actually a standard application of statitics.

I wonder what the rates / weights are based on. Youd have to have the statistics of overall shots in 18 yard box to goals actually scored for the weight to actually mean anything. You could do similar for the actual player. But youd need a shit load of data and a very good statistical model to apply to the dataset.

But he could be on to something there...
Click to expand...

Plenty of places online that do this

Statsbomb for example

Some really interesting data / analysis


Hard to predict as it is human execution really but they do a pretty good job explaining that and breaking things down,

I find it quite interesting.

Their take on united last season was we played pretty well and pretty attacking football but we're awfully wasteful just by looking at data like this and not the games in itself
 
I like what you've both said, quite a lot, actually. Some very interesting points to consider. @Green_Red @automaticflare

also what @Jim Beam said about 'the opposition are scoring at an unsustainable rate' not taking into account the LFC defence, :lol:

But I also think that looking at a single game & then saying 'we slaughtered them on the xG' is...
1 - rather ignoring the evidence that can be derived from one's own eyes
2 - and most importantly for this thread, worth taking the :lol: out of, a little bit, surely?
 
Stop posting shite. This is the RAWK thread.

Go away quickly, you sniveling little ticks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.