Match Thread - Port Vale v Notts County

[bycars bootboy]

I expect a narrow victory Saturday,with Aspo in line for manager of the month, surely.

[markpvfc]

I expect a narrow victory Saturday,with Aspo in line for manager of the month, surely.

 

Saturday is November so wouldn't count with the last 3 games towards motm.

[yoblet]

I think Whitfield and Pope seem to work together better than pope and Miller at the moment,Kanu seems to be way down the list of choice as a forward.

[Danish Valiant]

I think Whitfield and Pope seem to work together better than pope and Miller at the moment,Kanu seems to be way down the list of choice as a forward.

 

Miller is a bit more selfish than Whitfield. Not that it's a bad thing, and Miller has started to pass the ball a bit more. On the other hand, I'm 100% sure, Miller would have buried that 1 on 1 against Bure with ease!

But Miller is better at stressing defences and pressing hard, than Whitfield is. Whitfield always seems to be invisible when he starts... Whereas Miller at least works his ******** off. Well, guess that's up to Aspin then...

[Hagrid]

What is that 'xG'?? How can you calculate, how many goals a team is expected to score?

 

Don't get it and think it's odd...

 

xG basically assigns a value between 0 and 1 for each shot a team takes.

 

A shot from the half way line would be given 0.01, and a tap in from a yard out into an empty net would be given 0.99, for example (based on how many times in 100 a shot from that area would go in).

 

Factors taken into account are the positioning of the goalkeeper, positioning of the defenders between the attacker and the goal, how the shot is taken (feet, head etc).

 

If you had 10 shots which were each assigned a value of 0.2, for example, the xG for that match would be 2. Its cumulatively added up.

 

Its a bit confusing as they aren't predicting how many goals are going to be scored, just how good the chances a team creates and how often the average team would score given those chances. Its a retrospective statistical analysis.

 

Its a great way of analysing fairly objectively how well a team is creating chances. At our level, there's not really much of a discrepancy in good and bad finising (as you might get at the top level with the likes of Aguero and Salah). Players at this level largely finish chances at a similar rate.

 

The most important factor in a forward scoring is not some wishy-washy 'finishing' ability, but the ability to put himself in excellent positions. We struggle to create chances where we have a forward in an excellent position, with a high xG.

 

Fundamentally, teams with higher xG per game finish higher in the table and score more goals. Our xG from open play is 24th/24, and including set pieces is 18th. Not great.

 

I find it very, very interesting as it dispels the notion that you can be ruthless with one chance and successful on a long term basis. It is far, far more important to work on the crafting of high quality chances than training to finish, or taking pot shots from long range in the blind hope one will go in. The best teams have high xG. Thats a fact.

 

There's loads of issues and caveats to it, notably around the issue of a 'big chance' (which is a very complicated issue), but xG is a decent way to settle the age-old debate of 'who had the better chances' in a game, which before was a much more subjective conversation.

 

If we are going to give xG any credence, we've got massive, massive issues going forwards. Thats why I've been a bit reserved in my praise of the last 3 games. Our xG has been fairly abject.

[Hagrid]

Also to add to that, Ben Whitfield is often our individual player with the best xG, meaning he is the player who gets himself in good positions to take a shot the most often (case in point being his one on one chance on Saturday).

 

This is why he has to start. We simply don't have enough players to either create high quality chances or get themselves in positions to finish high quality chances. Whitfield is one of our only players capable of doing so.

[Fosse69]

Is there a defensive one too? Where defenders should be to reduce/prevent chances?

[Erniemossrules]

Is there a defensive one too? Where defenders should be to reduce/prevent chances?

 

I had to laugh at half time on Saturday when I visited the toilets.

One guy said that if Joyce backed of any further he would be playing in Tunstall.

We don’t really put pressure on their players in midfield but back off and let them run with the ball instead of tackling them.

The difference is that when Manny plays he challenges them for the ball and tackles them.

We surrender far too much space to allow them to play and come at us.

I still think a Aspin is far too negative at home matches.

[Hagrid]

Is there a defensive one too? Where defenders should be to reduce/prevent chances?

 

Yes there is also an xG conceded model. This measures the quality of chances the opposition has in games against us.

 

Under Aspo, ours has been really good. We limit the opposition to long-range efforts/low quality chances. Its a sign that a team defends well, often in numbers and fairly deep.

 

As we all know, we're good at the back and poor up front. These statistics just validate what we're seeing.

 

However, with our current xG output, we can hope for little more than lower mid-table, barring a miraculous run of scoring form which happens very rarely (Burnley in recent years, Leicester in their title season etc). Now we have rectified the defensive issue of Lincoln, we really need to focus on creating good chances (for example, in our last 3 games we've scored from a penalty and a poor clearance feeding Pope. We're not creating good enough chances). If we sort that, we'll fly up the league.

 

Aspo talks about getting more strikers through the door; in my view we need someone to create these high quality chances, an Eagles mould (not advocating Eagles, just a player like him).

[Upfromnowhere]

Also to add to that, Ben Whitfield is often our individual player with the best xG, meaning he is the player who gets himself in good positions to take a shot the most often (case in point being his one on one chance on Saturday).

 

This is why he has to start. We simply don't have enough players to either create high quality chances or get themselves in positions to finish high quality chances. Whitfield is one of our only players capable of doing so.

 

Cant agree with that Hagrid, as stats mean very little, or at best can be subjectively misleading. For example they wouldn't tell you that the only reason we even got that chance Saturday was because they had ten men in and around our area, and on a hoofed clearance Pope who flicked it on for him was, for once in splendid isolation and marked by a FB instead of the customary two CH's.

What I assume they also don't tell you is that in the last three games, with no other chance than the one on one, no forward that I can remember, has even worked their keeper, which leaves me fascinated to know how, what or where someone needs to stand to not only keep an eye on all players but to more accurately then claim or know who is in best position of all the players he cant watch at the same time, to take the 'best' shot, of which is also totally subjective. The world has gone mad!

[Upfromnowhere]

Yes there is also an xG conceded model. This measures the quality of chances the opposition has in games against us.

 

Under Aspo, ours has been really good. We limit the opposition to long-range efforts/low quality chances. Its a sign that a team defends well, often in numbers and fairly deep.

 

As we all know, we're good at the back and poor up front. These statistics just validate what we're seeing.

 

However, with our current xG output, we can hope for little more than lower mid-table, barring a miraculous run of scoring form which happens very rarely (Burnley in recent years, Leicester in their title season etc). Now we have rectified the defensive issue of Lincoln, we really need to focus on creating good chances (for example, in our last 3 games we've scored from a penalty and a poor clearance feeding Pope. We're not creating good enough chances). If we sort that, we'll fly up the league.

 

Aspo talks about getting more strikers through the door; in my view we need someone to create these high quality chances, an Eagles mould (not advocating Eagles, just a player like him).

 

Your'e just building my case further for me, or if not you, the stats are. Who on earth measures, and in a split second decides the quality of chances the opposition has against us?

More, if these stats are really suggesting we restrict the opposition to long range efforts or low quality chances, clearly these judges don't watch all our games as they would have probably noticed (though perhaps not) that five of our last six goals conceded were from corners and all around the six yard box, unless of course to the stat men that actually constitutes long distance!

 

Its not that we aren't creating good enough chances (determined by these stat people) but not creating enough chances of any bloody description, and as for having a good defence, is there not a difference between a good defence and a good defensive record of late, and to be fair any team in any league would have a better chance of stopping goals if, like us they park 7,8,9 players deep into our own half?

 

Stats eh?

[Hagrid]

Lots of stuff to deal with there Upfromnowhere.

 

Regarding Whitfield; the fact that he was in the position to be clean through one on one is the point I'm making. He played a great one-two with Pope and had the pace and dribbling to ensure he'd be one and one. He missed, but if he keeps getting himself into said positions the goals will come. Not enough of our players are getting themselves into those positions. We employed a counter attack to good effect. I don't understand how this is less of a good chance than any other.

 

What measures the quality of a chance; distance from goal, position of goalkeeper, position and number of defenders between the ball and the goal, what part of the body is used to shoot, where the ball has come from. They're just a few of the factors that go into it. These factors are then used to assign a value of the shot between 0 and 1.

 

Our xG conceded for the Lincoln game was really bad. Our xG for games apart from Lincoln (which in statistical terms can be viewed as an 'anomaly' ) is good. We're really good at preventing teams from getting good chances (one on ones, etc). I don't quite understand your point. Our xG conceded, and therefore the quality of chances conceded is low as we are sitting deep with a back 5, and 7 men behind the ball. You seem to be agreeing with me unwittingly? Surely you understand that bar the Lincoln game we've been defensively pretty good, and that one swallow doesn't make a summer? xG conceded doesn't measure how we defend (in numbers, high line, deeply), just how good the chances the opposition get. On average, we're good at limiting good chances (Lincoln aside).

 

You seem to have fundamental misconceptions about xG. Its not about "who is in best position of all the players he cant watch at the same time", its about looking at a shot in isolation, applying the factors into a computer, and getting a number between 0 and 1. The closer to 1, the better the chance. The analyst isn't fussed about the positions of other attackers, just the shot-taker itself. Whitfield is our best player at being in positions where the number is closer to 1. As a team, we don't create anywhere near enough chances that are closer to 1.

 

As I say, you seem to be making confused points. I'd be happy to DM a few things about xG as I find stats in football fascinating (see what Brentford achieve on their budget employing stats, or what literally every high-level club does with their vast statistical analysis departments). xG is great for confirming things; we've got a good defence (as we agree, largely a result of sitting very deep in recent times), a poor attack, and Whitfield has got to start if we want to score goals.

[Warren]

We need to work out why Notts County are bottom of the league when they were expected to be top. Exploit the root causes. Win the game. Simples.

[Upfromnowhere]

Lots of stuff to deal with there Upfromnowhere.

 

Regarding Whitfield; the fact that he was in the position to be clean through one on one is the point I'm making. He played a great one-two with Pope and had the pace and dribbling to ensure he'd be one and one. He missed, but if he keeps getting himself into said positions the goals will come. Not enough of our players are getting themselves into those positions. We employed a counter attack to good effect. I don't understand how this is less of a good chance than any other.

 

What measures the quality of a chance; distance from goal, position of goalkeeper, position and number of defenders between the ball and the goal, what part of the body is used to shoot, where the ball has come from. They're just a few of the factors that go into it. These factors are then used to assign a value of the shot between 0 and 1.

 

Our xG conceded for the Lincoln game was really bad. Our xG for games apart from Lincoln (which in statistical terms can be viewed as an 'anomaly' ) is good. We're really good at preventing teams from getting good chances (one on ones, etc). I don't quite understand your point. Our xG conceded, and therefore the quality of chances conceded is low as we are sitting deep with a back 5, and 7 men behind the ball. You seem to be agreeing with me unwittingly? Surely you understand that bar the Lincoln game we've been defensively pretty good, and that one swallow doesn't make a summer? xG conceded doesn't measure how we defend (in numbers, high line, deeply), just how good the chances the opposition get. On average, we're good at limiting good chances (Lincoln aside).

 

You seem to have fundamental misconceptions about xG. Its not about "who is in best position of all the players he cant watch at the same time", its about looking at a shot in isolation, applying the factors into a computer, and getting a number between 0 and 1. The closer to 1, the better the chance. The analyst isn't fussed about the positions of other attackers, just the shot-taker itself. Whitfield is our best player at being in positions where the number is closer to 1. As a team, we don't create anywhere near enough chances that are closer to 1.

 

As I say, you seem to be making confused points. I'd be happy to DM a few things about xG as I find stats in football fascinating (see what Brentford achieve on their budget employing stats, or what literally every high-level club does with their vast statistical analysis departments). xG is great for confirming things; we've got a good defence (as we agree, largely a result of sitting very deep in recent times), a poor attack, and Whitfield has got to start if we want to score goals.

 

Some of my points evolve around the fact that no one observer can record, take note or even see anywhere near enough from which to make a judgement which to me Hagrid, dilutes the worth or even validity of the observations then made.

Taking Whits chance on Saturday. If these fundamentally flawed stats, and on the basis of one breakaway moment/chance can then suggest, that he is likely to be or could be our main source of goals because of it, as it demonstrates he is the player who gets in the best positions. Whilst it may be the case, to base it on that one moment is frankly absurd.

It's happened once all season,and that's the real problem. I actually think our forwards do get into good areas and quite often as well, but as the stats should say, but clearly don't, reason they don't score is because they are not given the ball, and not because they are missing open goals.

 

My point about the stats on our defending is because their suggestions are to me equally absurd, especially if it they are suggesting that we are good at stopping teams creating what you described as good chances, and or more accurately restricting them to chances from outside the box, when to me the total opposite is true.

Not only has Brown, by some way our player of the season thus far, been called on to bail us out on so many occasions with some real worldy saves, he has been forced to do so, because we don't restrict teams to attempts outside the box, as you said the stats were saying we did.

Examine the goals we have shipped Hagrid, and you'll agree I am sure, that many, most in fact, have come not from outside the box as you were saying the stats said, but from inside the six yard area.

When taking stats, you have to do so on face value, one can't, to prove ones case, select which bits are relevant or not, and endorsing the stats frailties further, I was simply highlighting the Lincoln game where flying directly in the face of what you said their findings were, five of the six goals we let in were again, not from outside the area but from within the six yard box, and the stats can't ignore those on the basis that it hasn't happened often.......can they

[sheffield61]

We need to work out why Notts County are bottom of the league when they were expected to be top. Exploit the root causes. Win the game. Simples.

 

According to their forum their inexperienced chairman has spent big, hence them being second FAV to win the league back in August......But spent big on a load of old cr@p!.....