United and xG (now that Ole is gone will things change?)

Pogue Mahone said:
We did. Bruno. And he made a massive difference. Our problem is that our ability to create goals (our xG, if you will) is totally reliant on someone who can be a bit flaky and can’t possibly play every game.

This “patterns of play” stuff gives me a ball ache but there has to be some truth in it. And it’s most apparent whenever we try and play anything other than our strongest possible line-up. City and Liverpool can slot in different players but the system remains exactly the same. We look like a team of strangers trying to improvise on the hoof. That’s not going to be good enough to win the league against teams managed by Klopp and Pep, sadly.
Click to expand...
The pattern of play is described very badly by some people here, but it is quite true. Thing is, every team (even some kids playing in a local team in fifth division of Malta) are gonna train patterns of play. Two players playing together for a long time, will create some chemistry (pattern of play). And obviously, United trains these things every time we train.

So some people seem to think that we do not bother, which is total nonsense. At the other hand, some coaches are much better than others. Pep, or Klopp or Tuchel are top quality coaches, so they will be able to drill their teams better. Ole is an average coach, so our team would play worse, and be dependent more in individual quality, compared to the others who are more dependent on the collective. Consequently, those teams play better and replacing players there is easier (Liverpool were ok in defense last season despite that all their CBS were injured).

So ‘patterns of play’ (just a new rebranding of team chemistry) is absolutely true. But the caricature of it, that teams either do them (City, Liverpool) or do not (United) is a bunch of nonsense.
 
OleBoiii said:
You could also argue that it's easier to create big chances against teams that dare to play a more open game. The exception being if the opposing team is vastly superior(which isn't the case here).



I hope that we do. If we continue with the same pattern then we will finish the season with 99 points and 99 goals :p
Click to expand...

You could argue playing Liverpool away is easier but that would be deluding yourself.
 
OleBoiii said:
But someone told me that Tuchel is the best manager in the game whereas Ole is the worst.
Click to expand...
Because they couldnt put the ball in the net last season so had to keep creating until the 90th minute. Now they are and they can ease off.
 
Revan said:
The pattern of play is described very badly by some people here, but it is quite true. Thing is, every team (even some kids playing in a local team in fifth division of Malta) are gonna train patterns of play. Two players playing together for a long time, will create some chemistry (pattern of play). And obviously, United trains these things every time we train.

So some people seem to think that we do not bother, which is total nonsense. At the other hand, some coaches are much better than others. Pep, or Klopp or Tuchel are top quality coaches, so they will be able to drill their teams better. Ole is an average coach, so our team would play worse, and be dependent more in individual quality, compared to the others who are more dependent on the collective. Consequently, those teams play better and replacing players there is easier (Liverpool were ok in defense last season despite that all their CBS were injured).

So ‘patterns of play’ (just a new rebranding of team chemistry) is absolutely true. But the caricature of it, that teams either do them (City, Liverpool) or do not (United) is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with your explanation, but I think the thread "we're awfully coached team" is a hyperbole, nobody really thinks we don't do the coaching, but it's evident we're on a different level to all 3 teams we're challenging with. In terms of squad quality there is almost no difference, that's where the cry for better coaching comes from.
 
mav_9me said:
You could argue playing Liverpool away is easier but that would be deluding yourself.
Click to expand...
We created more chances to score at Anfield last season than in a lot of easier games at OT when we dropped points
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This “patterns of play” stuff gives me a ball ache but there has to be some truth in it. And it’s most apparent whenever we try and play anything other than our strongest possible line-up. City and Liverpool can slot in different players but the system remains exactly the same. We look like a team of strangers trying to improvise on the hoof. That’s not going to be good enough to win the league against teams managed by Klopp and Pep, sadly.
Click to expand...

There are no Klopps or Peps available though. So loathe as I may be at times not seeing a clear and definable system or pattern or whatever, I don’t see any point in making a change unless there is a clear upgrade available as Solskjær at the very least provides a level of stability.

Not saying that’s what you were advocating. Just saying we have seen where “patterns of play” could take us before. And we weren’t better off for it.
 
cyberman said:
We have been scoring since Bruno joined us and haven’t slowed down since? So the XG naysayers have been right so far?
I still think people out too much stock into it. Barcelona drew 1-1 on Monday. Scored a header that shouldn’t be missed yet missed a header from a corner when a player was free, 4 yards out yet XG was 1. Something.
The XG crowd that claim it’s the be all and end all are just as bad as the crowd that tells us it holds no value
Click to expand...

That's just a misuse of xG though. The point of it isn't to look at individual chances and say "he should/shouldn't have scored there". It's to link the broader creation of chances over time to the broader scoring of goals.

Imagine we take 100 shots of 0.01 xG. The metric is there to predict that from that 100 shots we would score one goal. But even if that prediction proves exactly right, you still end up with a goal from one of those 0.01xG chances. At which point (by the above logic) you would then point to that goal and say "why should we pay attention to xG when it says he only had a one-in-a-hundred chance of scoring but he did?".
 
MvG said:
There are no Klopps or Peps available though. So loathe as I may be at times not seeing a clear and definable system or pattern or whatever, I don’t see any point in making a change unless there is a clear upgrade available as Solskjær at the very least provides a level of stability.

Not saying that’s what you were advocating. Just saying we have seen where “patterns of play” could take us before. And we weren’t better off for it.
Click to expand...

Fair point but we may have to be brave and get someone like Ten Haag who appears to be an excellent coach. But then again coaching Ajax is very different to United. I don't know.
 
mav_9me said:
Point taken but that's a bit unique to our style of play no?
Click to expand...
Na I don’t think so. Take Palace last week when they missed chance after chance. It’s difficult to win at these fortresses because they come at you and that leaves you situations to exploit. It just doesn’t even out with the pounding you get on the other side.
Take Chelsea v City this weekend. I guarantee you Chelsea will not have as good of a 45 mins as they did at Anfield all because nobody will attack them at SB
 
sullydnl said:
Agree, the underlying data will be concerning if it keeps trending like that. Particularly as we've had easier fixtures than at least two of our rivals in that small sample size of games.

Last season Man City's xG difference was +42.0, Chelsea's (despite a good chunk of the season with Lampard as manager) was +31.2, Liverpool +27.3 and ours +18.0. I don't see how we can win the league without huge improvements there, particularly as we were already overperforming our xG by the second most in the league and Liverpool and particularly Chelsea are unlikely to underperform their xG as they did last season.

Yesterday's game tells its own little story. 27 shots but still ended up with just 1.5xG to their 1.4xG
Click to expand...

And that is why xG over a single game doesn't tell you the story. There are way too many variables in football that can explain high or low xG for a given team - game state being one of them.

I'm quite certain, WHU's xG before the 83rd odd minute would have been close to 0.5 or less than that.

Look, I love xG metrics and nearly all these statistical measures, but for these metrics to make sense you need a huge sample size that neutralizes effects like game state, injuries, red cards, etc.
 
Revan said:
The pattern of play is described very badly by some people here, but it is quite true. Thing is, every team (even some kids playing in a local team in fifth division of Malta) are gonna train patterns of play. Two players playing together for a long time, will create some chemistry (pattern of play). And obviously, United trains these things every time we train.

So some people seem to think that we do not bother, which is total nonsense. At the other hand, some coaches are much better than others. Pep, or Klopp or Tuchel are top quality coaches, so they will be able to drill their teams better. Ole is an average coach, so our team would play worse, and be dependent more in individual quality, compared to the others who are more dependent on the collective. Consequently, those teams play better and replacing players there is easier (Liverpool were ok in defense last season despite that all their CBS were injured).

So ‘patterns of play’ (just a new rebranding of team chemistry) is absolutely true. But the caricature of it, that teams either do them (City, Liverpool) or do not (United) is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. I was saying something similar to @sullydnl yesterday. Kieran McKenna had our underage teams playing fantastic football. Full of the sort of “patterns of play” people imply is completely absent from our first team. Is it somehow harder to get his message across to seasoned pros than it is to 18 year olds?

That makes no sense. There’s obviously a huge focus on that sort of stuff at a first team level. The problem is we lack the elite capability of Klopp/Pep when it comes to consistently reproducing training ground automations in top flight competitive matches. It’s the holy grail of football and no great disgrace that Ole et al are second best to those two (as well as, arguably, Tuchel). It does mean we’re incredibly unlikely to win the league so long as the managers all stay the same. Which is a bummer.
 
MvG said:
There are no Klopps or Peps available though. So loathe as I may be at times not seeing a clear and definable system or pattern or whatever, I don’t see any point in making a change unless there is a clear upgrade available as Solskjær at the very least provides a level of stability.

Not saying that’s what you were advocating. Just saying we have seen where “patterns of play” could take us before. And we weren’t better off for it.
Click to expand...
There are multiple better managers than Ole right there. There is no Klopp or Pe available so let’s stick with Ole is as nonsense as there is no Xavi or Pirlo, so let’s stick with Fred.

Also, there is Zidane available. And Conte. And Ter Haag. And Tucher and Nagelsmann and Allegri were available in the last 6 months. Pochettino too, but I think he is similar to Ole. But yeah, there are available managers who would be clear upgrades on Ole.
 
Withnail said:
The thing is we will improve. It's very early in the season for all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Click to expand...

There's no wailing and gnashing when looking at xG. It's the cold and rational approach. The pattern so far this season is little different to how it has been throughout Ole's reign. It's possible that we can win the league with Ole now we have such a talented squad but it's unlikely considering how much better the other tops sides are as a team. I'd say it's even more unlikely that under Ole we can have some sort of sustained success at the highest level.
 
sullydnl said:
That's just a misuse of xG though. The point of it isn't to look at individual chances and say "he should/shouldn't have scored there". It's to link the broader creation of chances over time to the broader scoring of goals.

Imagine we take 100 shots of 0.01 xG. The metric is there to predict that from that 100 shots we would score one goal. But even if that prediction proves exactly right, you still end up with a goal from one of those 0.01xG chances. At which point (by the above logic) you would then point to that goal and say "why should we pay attention to xG when it says he only had a one-in-a-hundred chance of scoring but he did?".
Click to expand...
As in the Rashford stat. He misses a lot of easy chances but his XG is almost bang on. We know Marcus isn’t clinical but that’s not what his XG leads you to believe he scores when he should and misses when he should. That just isn’t true and it seems to point to XG being blind to inside forwards cutting inside.
I’ll love to see City’s XG when they play so much through Grealish this season. I’ll bet any money it drops significantly over the long term
 
Borys said:
No, it's average (hence the expected). So if you have a good strikers they can turn low quality chances into goals, like we do. But you'll struggle when they are out. That's why people mention we rely a lot on individual brilliance.
Statistically a shot of xG=0,3 will be converted in to goal once every 3 shots by average player, that's the way the xG works. Ronaldo, Bruno, and Greenwood tend to be on the positive side of goals to xG ratio but that won't happen every game.
Click to expand...

Depends on algo. Statsbomb takes into account number of defenders between you and the goal, the GK position, and various other things as well. Understat is comparatively basic in that regard

Borys said:
Probably the best one-sentence description of the season so far. We're on the extreme end of both goalkeeping stat (PSxG+/-) and scoring stats (np:G-xG).
So basically if we want to maintain this run, De Gea, Ronaldo and Greenwood need to continue their purple patch.
Click to expand...

And too small a data size now. In terms of overperfromance, Chelsea are overperforming their xG model by a bigger margin
 
Revan said:
There are multiple better managers than Ole right there. There is no Klopp or Pe available so let’s stick with Ole is as nonsense as there is no Xavi or Pirlo, so let’s stick with Fred.

Also, there is Zidane available. And Conte. And Ter Haag. And Tucher and Nagelsmann and Allegri were available in the last 6 months. Pochettino too, but I think he is similar to Ole. But yeah, there are available managers who would be clear upgrades on Ole.
Click to expand...

Huge question marks over Zidane. No way should he be considered a definite upgrade. Especially when you consider that Ole’s biggest upside is what he represents about this club. Which is exactly the reason there are so many doubts about Zidane succeeding anywhere other than Madrid.
 
anant said:
And that is why xG over a single game doesn't tell you the story. There are way too many variables in football that can explain high or low xG for a given team - game state being one of them.

I'm quite certain, WHU's xG before the 83rd odd minute would have been close to 0.5 or less than that.

Look, I love xG metrics and nearly all these statistical measures, but for these metrics to make sense you need a huge sample size that neutralizes effects like game state, injuries, red cards, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree completely, I just made a similar point point in regards to judging individual chances by xG. I was really just using yesterday's game data to make a side-point about the sort of chances we ended up taking despite having had 27 shots, which is what I meant by it telling its own story.

I wouldn't even start to look at this season's xG data vaguely seriously until we're a few months in. Right now it's just skewed towards whoever happened to have the best opening fixtures.
 
Just as Pogue mentioned, no xG stats needed for fans who actually watch us unbiased. We are creating feck all and against deep sitting sides this has been the case since Ole took over. We look toothless and out of ideas. Our "shots" stat yesterday was a pure joke. Some of these attempts were laughably bad and a result of frustration and a lack of creativity.

I just wish we could start to look convincing under Ole.
 
cyberman said:
As in the Rashford stat. He misses a lot of easy chances but his XG is almost bang on. We know Marcus isn’t clinical but that’s not what his XG leads you to believe he scores when he should and misses when he should. That just isn’t true and it seems to point to XG being blind to inside forwards cutting inside.
I’ll love to see City’s XG when they play so much through Grealish this season. I’ll bet any money it drops significantly over the long term
Click to expand...

I think it’s more the type of goals Rashford scores. How often is he presented with simple tap-ins? Such a high proportion of his goals are goals that other strikers wouldn’t put away it ends up compensating for the occasional glaring miss.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Huge question marks over Zidane. No way should he be considered a definite upgrade. Especially when you consider that Ole’s biggest upside is what he represents about this club. Which is exactly the reason there are so many doubts about Zidane succeeding anywhere other than Madrid.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Nagelsmann on the other hand would have been such an exciting project. Shame we don't do that
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yes, agreed. I was saying something similar to @sullydnl yesterday. Kieran McKenna had our underage teams playing fantastic football. Full of the sort of “patterns of play” people imply is completely absent from our first team. Is it somehow harder to get his message across to seasoned pros than it is to 18 year olds?

That makes no sense. There’s obviously a huge focus on that sort of stuff at a first team level. The problem is we lack the elite capability of Klopp/Pep when it comes to consistently reproducing training ground automations in top flight competitive matches. It’s the holy grail of football and no great disgrace that Ole et al are second best to those two (as well as, arguably, Tuchel). It does mean we’re incredibly unlikely to win the league so long as the managers all stay the same. Which is a bummer.
Click to expand...

This was from the West Ham away press conference

"I’m not here to explain every single detail of how I want my team to play. We want central midfielder who can play. Today’s football is about he’s a good 6, 8, 10 back in the day you had proper midfielders, Roy Keane, Paul Scholes, Bryan Robson. You see players out there who can attack and defend and that’s what we look for, midfielders who are complete and we try to develop that in our midfield.

It's a balance between with how many you commit forward and how you defend because one little mistake and there’s a counter attack towards you.

Overarching philosophy… I don’t sit here and claim and talk... football is a simple game and it's about making good decisions and being in a team.

Sometimes we look too much into the all intricacies and it’s passion, it's desire - who wants to win the ball? Which one of the striker has the desire to get on the end of crosses?

You can talk about all sorts, it looks nice on paper. But when you go out on that pitch, it's who wants to win, that’s one of the big things. You want winners and I think I’m getting there with my team, team players."

That's basically why we play like we do. Ole is still very invested in the old school ideas of football that have been superceded in the past decade with the advance in analytics in the game. People may not like the departure from 'passion' and 'emotion' to efficiency but the genie is out of the bottle.
 
anant said:
Depends on algo. Statsbomb takes into account number of defenders between you and the goal, the GK position, and various other things as well. Understat is comparatively basic in that regard



And too small a data size now. In terms of overperfromance, Chelsea are overperforming their xG model by a bigger margin
Click to expand...
Statsbomb is the base for fbref right? I don't usually follow understat. But they have nice xG over timeline graph.

The data show we're overperforming, that's all. With this sample size it could be down to luck, but we also have some great attackers. Chelsea seem to be in similar situation. My guess both United and Chelsea will drop this ratio soon but will still be overperforming obviously. Ronaldo and Lukaku will make sure on that. I'm more worried about defending.
 
Revan said:
There are multiple better managers than Ole right there. There is no Klopp or Pe available so let’s stick with Ole is as nonsense as there is no Xavi or Pirlo, so let’s stick with Fred.

Also, there is Zidane available. And Conte. And Ter Haag. And Tucher and Nagelsmann and Allegri were available in the last 6 months. Pochettino too, but I think he is similar to Ole. But yeah, there are available managers who would be clear upgrades on Ole.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is a nonsense as changing the manager is far riskier than buying a new midfielder.

I don’t want to derail this thread, but all of the available managers you cited have their issues. Zidane isn’t a tactician by his own admission and doesn’t even speak English. Conte is as toxic as Mourinho. Ten Hag is as unproven as OGS was.

Again, it would have to be a clear upgrade.
 
I genuinely think we know all there is to know about Ole and the football we’ll play, unless something massively changes. To my mind it’s now about whether we can somehow put together a squad that’s better than what the others have and have that be sufficient. So far, the squad building side of things definitely seems a strength of Ole’s.
 
MvG said:
There are no Klopps or Peps available though. So loathe as I may be at times not seeing a clear and definable system or pattern or whatever, I don’t see any point in making a change unless there is a clear upgrade available as Solskjær at the very least provides a level of stability.

Not saying that’s what you were advocating. Just saying we have seen where “patterns of play” could take us before. And we weren’t better off for it.
Click to expand...
There are always managers around who are on their way to becoming the next Klopp, Pep etc Tuchel has been brilliant for Chelsea. Let's see how good Nagelsmann becomes. It's about identifying them and striking at the right time.

And eventually this whole "clear upgrade" point will wear thin when it becomes evident that he's not good enough at the elite level. Then, people will accept that even if we are going for functional football, we may as well go for someone who genuinely excels at it. I'd prefer if we got the former (exciting style of play) but a club with our ambitions cannot sit on our backsides if Ole isn't taking us to the top. This season will tell us a lot. Let's see how Ole does.
 
Borys said:
Statsbomb is the base for fbref right? I don't usually follow understat. But they have nice xG over timeline graph.

The data show we're overperforming, that's all. With this sample size it could be down to luck, but we also have some great attackers. Chelsea seem to be in similar situation. My guess both United and Chelsea will drop this ratio soon but will still be overperforming obviously. Ronaldo and Lukaku will make sure on that. I'm more worried about defending.
Click to expand...

Yep, fbref uses Statsbomb data.
 
Borys said:
Statsbomb is the base for fbref right? I don't usually follow understat. But they have nice xG over timeline graph.

The data show we're overperforming, that's all. With this sample size it could be down to luck, but we also have some great attackers. Chelsea seem to be in similar situation. My guess both United and Chelsea will drop this ratio soon but will still be overperforming obviously. Ronaldo and Lukaku will make sure on that. I'm more worried about defending.
Click to expand...

The issue with overperforming at both ends is that it increases the likelihood of bad days at the office where you drop points. If you look at some of the points totals of Liverpool and City over recent seasons you can't afford those bad days.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
There's no wailing and gnashing when looking at xG. It's the cold and rational approach. The pattern so far this season is little different to how it has been throughout Ole's reign. It's possible that we can win the league with Ole now we have such a talented squad but it's unlikely considering how much better the other tops sides are as a team. I'd say it's even more unlikely that under Ole we can have some sort of sustained success at the highest level.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the rush to over analyse everything after 5 league games and a couple of bad cup results.

I'm also not going to write off Chelsea after such a small sample size as you seem happy to do. I'll start paying attention to the table after 9/10 games.
 
Withnail said:
I'm talking about the rush to over analyse everything after 5 league games and a couple of bad cup results.

I'm also not going to write off Chelsea after such a small sample size as you seem happy to do. I'll start paying attention to the table after 9/10 games.
Click to expand...

I didn't do that.

As for United, City and Liverpool I acknowledged that it's a small sample but pretty much the same as recent seasons which is why I thought it worth talking about.
 
Revan said:
There are multiple better managers than Ole right there. There is no Klopp or Pe available so let’s stick with Ole is as nonsense as there is no Xavi or Pirlo, so let’s stick with Fred.

Also, there is Zidane available. And Conte. And Ter Haag. And Tucher and Nagelsmann and Allegri were available in the last 6 months. Pochettino too, but I think he is similar to Ole. But yeah, there are available managers who would be clear upgrades on Ole.
Click to expand...
Bang on the money. I'm fine with us seeing Ole does this season and he's been backed and the atmosphere in the team is good. But you can keep rolling out the "disdain for change" line only so much. Every top club can't sit on their bums doing feck all just because Klopp and Pep (and now Tuchel and then soemone else) is taken.
 
Brophs said:
I genuinely think we know all there is to know about Ole and the football we’ll play, unless something massively changes. To my mind it’s now about whether we can somehow put together a squad that’s better than what the others have and have that be sufficient. So far, the squad building side of things definitely seems a strength of Ole’s.
Click to expand...
Our results with our second string side would say otherwise.

He's built a good first XI with some top individuals but that's about it. Any time he has to actually utilise the overall squad it's tended to be a shambles. Let's not forget either that a number of the players last night were ones he signed and gave new contracts to.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
This was from the West Ham away press conference

"I’m not here to explain every single detail of how I want my team to play. We want central midfielder who can play. Today’s football is about he’s a good 6, 8, 10 back in the day you had proper midfielders, Roy Keane, Paul Scholes, Bryan Robson. You see players out there who can attack and defend and that’s what we look for, midfielders who are complete and we try to develop that in our midfield.

It's a balance between with how many you commit forward and how you defend because one little mistake and there’s a counter attack towards you.

Overarching philosophy… I don’t sit here and claim and talk... football is a simple game and it's about making good decisions and being in a team.

Sometimes we look too much into the all intricacies and it’s passion, it's desire - who wants to win the ball? Which one of the striker has the desire to get on the end of crosses?

You can talk about all sorts, it looks nice on paper. But when you go out on that pitch, it's who wants to win, that’s one of the big things. You want winners and I think I’m getting there with my team, team players."

That's basically why we play like we do. Ole is still very invested in the old school ideas of football that have been superceded in the past decade with the advance in analytics in the game. People may not like the departure from 'passion' and 'emotion' to efficiency but the genie is out of the bottle.
Click to expand...

That was just tub-thumping from someone who felt cornered. There’s obviously a hell of a lot more to our training sessions than Ole roaring at the team to get fecking stuck in.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Huge question marks over Zidane. No way should he be considered a definite upgrade. Especially when you consider that Ole’s biggest upside is what he represents about this club. Which is exactly the reason there are so many doubts about Zidane succeeding anywhere other than Madrid.
Click to expand...

He is absolutely, without doubt an upgrade over Ole. Their CVs are on a different level. The guy has been a manager for 5 years at one club and won everything. If he has huge question marks and so many doubts then there is literally no other manager in the world you couldn't say the same for.
 
MvG said:
The first paragraph is a nonsense as changing the manager is far riskier than buying a new midfielder.

I don’t want to derail this thread, but all of the available managers you cited have their issues. Zidane isn’t a tactician by his own admission and doesn’t even speak English. Conte is as toxic as Mourinho. Ten Hag is as unproven as OGS was.

Again, it would have to be a clear upgrade.
Click to expand...

Agreed with Zidane and Conte potentially carrying risks but the bolded is OTT - Ten Haag has reached the latter stages of the CL with Ajax and won two league/cup doubles. Far more impressive resume than Ole's even now - prior to Ole joining United it's completely incomparable.

As an oppo, Ten Haag is up there with the managers I'd like you least to get.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Our results with our second string side would say otherwise.

He's build a good first XI with some top individuals but that's about it. Any time he has to actually utilise the overall squad it's tended to be a shambles.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I think that’s been an issue for far longer than he’s been here, though and the squad is demonstrably better than it’s been for years. But yeah, perhaps not the morning to make that point.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.