Justice
Dangerous Idiot
I wonder how our current crop of strikers are thinking with all of the football world saying they can’t hit a barn door 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] At the moment, Graham Potter is too good for Brighton. He needs better players.
- Thread starter OzMike
- Start date
It was undisclosed and not leaked anywhere. All we know from both the BBC and SSN was that the fee was lower than the Locadia robbery.
(In fairness to that poster, several newspaper websites stated £17m).
I wonder how our current crop of strikers are thinking with all of the football world saying they can’t hit a barn door
“Shall I visit the Ferrari or Bentley dealers after training? Decisions, decisions”.
Possibly. I'm not a coach, just a fan, so all of this is really opinion and nothing else. However, one of the things that Potter was supposed to bring was flexibility and by that I didn't just mean slight formation changes or having a choice between playing Little and Large up front or only choosing one of them.
I was thinking much more of us alternating between high and low blocks, high, low and no press. Press teams who sit back or invite them on or alternate between the two. Don't think you can invite Palace on? There's a story about Bielsa that he once got his team to hit a side on the break by deliberately giving the opposition attacking throw ins, which he'd seen they were vulnerable from.
In fact, say what you like about CH - he knew how to beat Palace.
There's a lot of common misunderstanding it would seem. [MENTION=13376]albionalex[/MENTION] understands it.
This is a good simple explanation:
https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-is-xg-football-how-statistic-calculated/h42z0iiv8mdg1ub10iisg1dju
N.B.
"The context of a scoring opportunity is precisely what informs its xG rating. A rebound falling to a player in front of an open goal six yards out will have a high xG score, but a shot taken from 35 yards at a narrow angle will have a low xG score.
If you see that chance is described as having an xG rating of 0.35 that means a player would be expected to score from the chance 35 per cent of the time - a one in three chance. If a chance is described as 0.5xG it should be scored 50% of the time and so on."
So, if we think of the Villa game (BHA xgf 2.44) let's look at our total shots - 26 according to the BBC. Each shot was worth an average of 0.09. In other words, on average, each chance we created had less than a 10% chance of going in (if you believe xG).
Obviously a free header six yards out like Ali Mac had is higher than that. Ditto Burn's shot fingertipped round the post. So you can argue that 2.44 isn't really too far off what is should have been, except that xG does not take into account at all that the player shooting in the latter is a defender who has never scored for us and the keeper saving it is having a very good night and high on confidence.
For those reasons I find it unreliable but what it is most definitely good at is confirming what we saw with our own eyes - that we had two decent chances, another where Maupay should have passed and it doesn't end up with a quality chance at all and lots of shots that get on the stats board but that are from the wrong place.
Palace wasn't much different BTW. We have the actual goal. We have Lallana's miss. After that the keeper doesn't get his kit dirty and our xG of 3 is inflated by lots and lots of poor shots through a packed area.
EDIT - what this shows for me is that people who trumpet our possessions stats and shots numbers haven't quite grasped that lesser teams (teams like Palace
Forgive me if I miss something - too busy at work to study too carefully.
Basically, xG does cover the 'quality' of the chance (eg distance, position), but not the 'likelihood' of scoring because it doesn't take into account the form/ability of the player shooting (or of defenders/GK etc)? Is that right?
Albion's season-long xG figures suggest that every Albion forward - or, rather, anyone who has shot - is not good at scoring. But actually, it's just bobbins, isn''t it?
Has anyone asked Potter what he thinks of xG?
That's my opinion. A stats nerd may disagree (or may not).
It suggests that we are bad at decision making and picking teams apart who park the bus. For "not good at goalscoring" you'd have to specifically analyse our conversion of high xG chances. I bet Uncle Tony has a team that are all over that.
Dunno. Would love to know what he thinks. Does [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] know?
I dont think I've ever heard him mention xG. He used data though, every training session is filmed and turned in to data and I'm sure xG is a part of it, but I doubt it plays a big role as its only useful when it comes to instructing players to not make attempts from bad angles or bad situations. Other than that its pretty useless.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,719
Long time ago now but in our first Premier League win, West Brom under Pulis came to the Amex in good form (think they were 6th). Our tactics seem to very deliberately go long and give them the ball or throw ins near their own goal where they were clueless about what to do with it
Jolly Red Giant
Well-known member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,615
1. Where did I argue that Bloom didn't back Hughton - he also signed Gross, Ryan and Propper- and he did similar in the championship bringing in the likes of Duffy, Norwood and bringing Glen back from Bournemouth.
2. You do not build a PL squad in one summer of transfers - Bloom spent about £50million that first year - the likes of Fulham, Villa and Wolves all spent in excess of £100million when they were promoted (and in Fulham's case it didn't save them - and it probably wouldn't have worked for Villa either if Grealish wasn't there). It can easily take 3/4 years to build a squad capable of competing in the PL and starting to attract players with known PL ability (like Lallana this year). From the squad that won promotion there are two players left - Dunk and March - and from the current squad of 30 players, only 6 of them played under Hughton at any stage.
3. It also needs to be noted that Bloom broke Brighton's transfer record on three separate occasions after Potter's appointment to bring in Webster, Maupay and Trossard.
4. When you get promoted the first and only objective is to prevent relegation - that is also the objective in the second season - because the vast majority of promoted teams go straight back down or get relegated in the second season even if they have a very good first season (like Sheff Utd this season or Huddersfield a couple of years ago). If Potter had been manager four years ago and had tried to play his style of football with the players who were available, the team would have been destroyed. The only reason that Potter can do what he is doing now is because of the foundation built by Hughton and the fact that Hughton kept the club in the PL for two very difficult seasons. We have no idea how successful Hughton would have been in year 3 or 4 or what style he would have the team playing in if he had the current squad of players at his disposal. Hughton is the proven article - he was a hugely successful coach before moving into management and has been very successful as manager - and I suspect he will prove once again how good he is at Forest.
Now - this thread really is not about Hughton, despite the fact that people keep bringing him into the discussion - it is about Potter and whether he is 'too good' because the players are poor or because he is not good enough to get the best out of the squad he has. I would argue - as I have consistently - that the jury is still out on Potter. He had one relatively successful season by maintaining PL status (greatly helped by the lockdown and Potter deserves credit for having the team ready to sprint out of the blocks when lockdown ended). This season he has an improved squad - the team has dominated games - yet they struggle to win when they should and to draw when they should. Apart for the run of 3 wins from 4 a month ago, the season has been very underwhelming and I think the defeat to Palace demonstrated more of the same - losing a game they should have won. This can happen in football - but when it is part of a season long pattern then that is a concern. The reality is that if the club get relegated (something I don't think will happen and is not the most likely scenario) then the conclusion is that the experiment of bringing Potter in will be regarded as a failure and Potter will be proven not to be good enough to keep the club in the PL. Again - I think Potter is good enough to sort this and prove he belongs with the big boys - but he needs to figure out how to convert performances into results sooner rather than later. You don't really want to be scrapping against relegation with Fulham and Newcastle (and maybe even WBA - it would be a mistake to write off Big Sam) for the rest of the season - anything can go wrong.
Yeah, I'd expect him to say it's useless/too simplistic.
As a casual fan, I think I'll stick with 'shots on target'. Or, even better, 'goals scored'.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,747
Yes. Mark Chapman's colleague asked him in a recent interview that [MENTION=600]Bry Nylon[/MENTION] references in post #52 of this thread: https://www.northstandchat.com/show...-on-radio-5-live/page6&highlight=mark+chapman He wasn't that bothered about Xg and said that he doesn't use it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000sfsf GP appears at about 52/53 minutes
Thanks.
I was going to joke that he'd like it if Albion consistently scored more goals than xG predicted, but I guess that would mean he was 'lucky'.
You're into this stuff. What does (pretty much) a whole season of xG/goals scored disparity mean?
Doesn't it discredit the system? I mean as this stage, no-one is expecting us to score 3 goals in a match except xG.
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,454
I stumbled across an interview with Potter on Radio 5 when I was on the way to the tip - which was the highlight of my day if not month - which I think was the same day as the Villa game. He was asked about Xg by the resident rent a gob pundit and he made comments along the lines of "don't too much notice and the only stats that matter are the result and goals scored and conceded" He certainly did give anything away.
I suspect though, Tony looks at them with great interest and was a key reason in CH's sacking.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,703
Mister Vanilla. This gormless ****er somehow just won his own personal lottery win. And his multiple hangers-on should be as ashamed of stealing a living from the game as Tanno and Charlie under Poyet
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,747
I can't say I know a lot about Xg/Xp. I've been looking at https://experimental361.com/ for a few years and find it interesting, but don't completely understand how they allocate the points. This website: https://understat.com/league/EPL/2014 allows you to order the tables for various seasons according to what the Xp finishing places would have been. There doesn't ever seem to have been a disparity as big as the one that we are (not) enjoying. West Brom were relegated after finishing 8 places below their Xp position in 2017/18, but I can't find anyone 11 positions and 15+ points away from where they actually finished.
I suppose that all it claims to do is give a measurement of chances for and against. If you don't score yours and your opponents always seem to score theirs, you're not going to get anywhere. What it might be saying about us is perhaps that we are doing far too much work in the middle and not enough at either end. Carragher suggested this on Monday, saying that perhaps we need to be playing two strikers, having less players to create chances, but having someone additional to finish the ones that we do make. I still feel that our problems are about space at either end. Monday was an extreme example, but our game plan usually seems to see us operating in very small tight spaces, while our opponents have often been given large spaces in behind us. When our strikers have opportunities that are in space, like against Leeds and Villa away, they seem to be just as capable as anyone else's. Personally, I don't think that Watkins, or any of the potential candidates who were within our price bracket, would currently be performing any better in this team. I think that something about our approach needs to be tweaked to allow space where we need it. I don't buy the argument that, with a top striker, we'd get to where the Xp table suggests we should be. I think that its a trade off and we need to be playing in a slightly different way that would reduce our Xg/Xp but give us strength in the areas needed to get closer to achieving it in reality. If you gave me the option, I wouldn't take a striker, I'd take someone who could do what Kazenga did in Poyet's early days, someone who disrupts the opposition because of his ability to run at people. Tariq's the nearest we have to this Grealish type of player, so it will be interesting to see how things change when he is back.
Last edited:
Mister Vanilla. This gormless ****er somehow just won his own personal lottery win. And his multiple hangers-on should be as ashamed of stealing a living from the game as Tanno and Charlie under Poyet
Not everyone can be as extraordinarly useful as you man.
This is why I can't get excited about Dan Burn having chances - or even creating them.
"Yes, he was partly responsible for conceding a goal or two.... but created two chances!!!" (paraphrasing) is BS, imho. Of course, I'd feel differently if our goals went it.
(Just an example. It's not all about Dan Burn.)
The Camel
Well-known member
Interesting Article - Why Are Brighton Unlucky?
Apologies if shared elsewhere, I did a search for infogol and couldn't see it.
Still worth a read..
https://www.infogol.net/en/blog/analysis/premier-league-analysis-why-are-brighton-unlucky-2422021
Apologies if shared elsewhere, I did a search for infogol and couldn't see it.
Still worth a read..
https://www.infogol.net/en/blog/analysis/premier-league-analysis-why-are-brighton-unlucky-2422021