Mate you are worse than me! Whatever you mean with contextualising the stats, all I did was telling you that my personal opinion is that they don't mean that we were the better team. I seriously don't know why that is difficult to understand. If you wouldn't have acted as if opinion is evident, I couldn't care less about your eyetest. Just as much as you can about mine.??? What are you talking about? “Explaining away” isn’t a literal “you’re buying a ticket and putting the stats on a bus and sending them to a different city so they no longer matter”. It’s a turn of phrase to highlight that you’re contextualising the stats - I said as much in that sentence.
I think, it is rather you, who intentionally misunderstand the points I am trying to make. I explicitly don't know why, as I pointed out multiple times, you can have any opinion you want. I understood your posts very well. You were the one trying to sell your opinion as evident. That was all I reacted to. It was a mistake, I get it. Apparently you interpreted that as something personal. Be assured, it wasn't.The statement made was “scoreline aside”. You do realise that, right? That qualifier is there for a reason. You seemingly just waffled throughout this exchange despite misunderstanding a lot of simple things - see above.
I don't know. The ones you pointed out all implied we had better numbers, but, and this is the 3rd time I write this, doesn't mean we had to be the better team.I made a particular statement corroborated by almost every possible in-game metric, why wouldn’t I point out said metrics?
Do you even read my posts?Again, what I said isn’t contingent on xG alone - and United’s was higher anyway.
???“Possession doesn’t mean feck all”, yeah well, possession didn’t happen in a vacuum - if United rocks up anywhere and cedes/doesn’t have control of majority of the game - and the manager is on record post-match saying “we held on to the end as best as we could”, I’d be saying the same about United.
Mate, lets leave it at that. I stepped on a landmine apparently. Again, in the most basic words I am able to phrase it in: You win football matches when you have scored more times than your opponent when the match time is done. So a team does well when it scores well and prevents the opponent to score. As football is a lowscoring sport, it make sense to use chance creation as alternative metric to evaluate a performance. A team performs well when it creates high probability chances and prevents the opponent from doing the same. Possession, shots on goal, field tilt, yellow cards, tackles, passes, corners - thats all stuff that happens along the way and feeds into whether you can or can not manage your own chances and the ones from your opponent. In yesterdays game, xG indicates, that we created more chances than the opponent. So the assumption we might have been the better team is understandable but weak, because when you look at it, most of our xG originates from one fecking double chance in the 18th minute. After that, we didn't create anything of note, more or less the same as NFO. But they score twice while we score only once. You can't tell me, that this rational is impossible to understand for you. You don't have to agree to it, thats fine, but acting as if "everything indicates my eyetest is correct and we were the better team and there is no question about it" (hence the evident) does my head in.