Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Match Of The Day 9/9/17 - Official Thread







Steve in Japan

Well-known member
NSC Patron
May 9, 2013
4,449
East of Eastbourne
Standard analysis of a team that is unknown territory for our MOTD pundits. And fair enough. Put a few more results together and we'll have more enthusiasm. Under the radar is good for now.
 


Mr deez

Masterchef
Jan 13, 2005
3,416
That was before kick-off. Its based on average goals/attacks over previous games and comparing relative league form. Since we had no goals in the first 3 games and if i recall we didnt score hardly anything as the end of last season after promotion (hence missing out on the title) so thats why we were only expected to score 0.4 goals !

Don't think that is right, expected goals quoted there is based on the quality of chances. None of our goals or other attempts would have been highly likely to be scored, so OPTA say we were either especially clinical with our chances, or got a bit lucky scoring 3.
 


AmexRuislip

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️
Feb 2, 2014
33,801
Ruislip
DEXATI20170909234351-1.png
 


Tony Le Mesmer

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
1,348
South Wales
Disappointing coverage and analysis.
No mention of the quality crossfield pass by Gross to March in the lead up to the first goal by Gross
 




seagulls4ever

New member
Oct 2, 2003
4,338
It's hilarious how bad the MOTD coverage is. The 'talents' that are Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer earn £2m and £450k per year. No idea what Ian Wright is on, but whatever it is, it's too much. I don't care about the 'names' - surely they can find some pundits with more insight for that sort of $?

No doubt Sky pundits are also raking it in, probably more so, but at least there is some talent there.
 










Jesus Gul

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2004
5,470
'Olly March', 'Hamad, or Hemed'

Got to feel for Motty and Wrighty as they struggle with these lesser players
 








Wellesley

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2013
4,973
Being a conductor must be the most piss-easy job in the world. they don't write the music, they don't play the instruments - they just stand at the front and wave a stick about and get all the plaudits. If he wasn't there doing that I'm sure the piece would sound near damn identical.

Oh dear. Culturally, you are SO beneath me.
 








Daddies_Sauce

Falmer WSL, not a JCL
Jun 27, 2008
852
Disappointed not to see any comment of the minutes applause for Motty in his last season, happy to remain under the radar for now, a few more results like that and I doubt that will be the case.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,163
Goldstone
was on the MOTD stats ticker thing whilst they were talking.
Thanks - although I was looking forward to it last night, I got distracted, so only just watched it. So the stat was clearly from the chances created in the game. How the hell were were 0.4? Hemed's chance was really tough, granted, but Pascal's first chance wasn't, and his second chance wasn't too bad either. Amazing the difference a bit of quality finishing makes.
 


Albumen

Don't wait for me!
Jan 19, 2010
11,495
Brighton - In your face
Murphy and Jenas are far the better pundits, as much as I've warmed to Wright over the past couple of years. Shearer will always come across cold and obvious. That said, there wasn't too much to talk about last night i.e. Controversial moments.
 






Freddo

Active member
May 14, 2006
646
Clapham
How was our expected goals 0.4 but theirs 1, when we had 6 on target and them 3?!

That was before kick-off. Its based on average goals/attacks over previous games and comparing relative league form. Since we had no goals in the first 3 games and if i recall we didnt score hardly anything as the end of last season after promotion (hence missing out on the title) so thats why we were only expected to score 0.4 goals !
This isn't how xG works

Don't think that is right, expected goals quoted there is based on the quality of chances. None of our goals or other attempts would have been highly likely to be scored, so OPTA say we were either especially clinical with our chances, or got a bit lucky scoring 3.
This is more or less correct

Each shot is given an xG value based on how likely it is to be scored, which primarily takes into account exactly where the shot is taken from, the angle to goal, the position of the goalkeeper, and whether it was a header or not. A goal is scored roughly once every 9 shots, so the average xG value is around 11% / 0.11

The xG value you see on MOTD are the sum of all the individual xG values over the course of the match for each team.

If you look back at our chances, in particular the 2nd and 3rd goals, both would have a pretty low xG value. Foster will have been expected to save the 2nd goal considering how far out it was, and for Hemed's he managed to squeeze it in at the near post where again Foster would have been expected to save it.

On the other hand, West Brom's goal and their chance at the very end each both had quite high xG values, both were about 8 yards out and very central.

This article explains it better than me: http://www.optasports.com/news-area...oals-makes-its-way-into-mainstream-media.aspx
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here