Im worried 😟

[viv_andersons_nana]

The issue with appointing managers and coaches who put everything on 1-0 wins, winning at all costs, means if you don’t win you’ve got nothing left to believe in or buy into. At least if a manager is working with his staff to put down a system, a style, and recruit and coach towards that then you have something to build on.

This then feeds into recruitment and youth development. If it doesn’t work out for that manager, you change it for someone else but make sure have similar principles. Your recruitment is then joined up. This the polar opposite of how the Boro has been run for the past 10, 12, 14 years.

It’s much harder to build an attacking, entertaining side then it is one that sets up camp and tries to nick goals and points. Wilder needs and deserves time. Patience is a virtue.

 

[Otto42]

Really don't get the modern fixation with statistics and after reading this thread and listening to the so called expert on 5 live last season (Rory Smith) go on about xG I still don't understand what it is trying to indicates, is it chances created and/or effectiveness of strikers. On Saturday apparently we had 16 shots, the only time there keeper was troubled was from a Lenihan header (is that an xG?), or are we talking about the shots which were so close to chances I can't really remember them, like when Watmore worked a good position for himself and shot tamely over or Mowatt wasted a free kick in the first half?

The old adage that you'll win more than you lose if you concentrate on keeping a clean sheet, which we haven't this season (6 games) and am guessing the last one last season was Bournemouth away? (10 games?), seems like a more revealing (damning) statistic to me.

 

[coluka]

Keegan’s team won promotion while playing absolutely fantastic football.

I am sure you know what I was implying Viv

 

[coluka]

When I’ve been on a bus for 11 hours to Reading, I want a few moments to get excited about intra game. Some talking points, other than how tedious our side to side half way line passing is. Sneaking a goal or 2 and winning - of course, you’d be happy from a result perspective, but if that’s the mentality, there’s no point going to the game. Better off just waiting to cheer the vidi-printer at 4:50pm.

I think it is pretty clear what I said we would all like to see, but the squad isn’t in a place to do that as yet.

Unfortunately we have to be realistic, all People were happy to see the Karanka Juggernaut home and away, clinical victories were more common place than exciting romps around the country. I want an effective Boro, not a Boro that dominates possession, gets too gung ho and gets picked off on the break like at Stoke the other day or Bristol and Barnsley last year.

The players are Jekyll and Hyde right now, the squad not set. Whilst we may not be a million miles off, we are clearly not near enough just yet as a squad capable of an exciting attacking goal fest team capable of keeping clean sheets to boot. If anyone wouldn’t be happy with a scrappy 1-0 win on Saturday and the foreseeable near future, then I’d be surprised.

 

[BoroMart]

While we all want to see Boro play quick, attractive, high intensity, goal filled football, I’d happily take a season of boring 1-0 wins and be promoted than be like Keegans Newcastle and ultimately win nowt.

It's not a mutually exclusive choice though, in fact more often success comes with some level of decent entertaining football.

 

[coluka]

It's not a mutually exclusive choice though, in fact more often success comes with some level of decent entertaining football.

I never said it was mutually exclusive, I would love both, but we have to be realistic, we currently don’t appear to have the personal to carry it off as yet, we may do by the window closing we may not. I would take a season of mostly boring 1-0’s over a season of mixed 3-2 wins and 2-3 defeats thats all. Any professional in the game knows the result is everything, the performance is less so

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

So in summary 3 of the games the opposition have scored double their xG, that is really unlucky

Its almost as if we are desperate for a couple of decent strikers isn't it?

 

[Andy_W]

Really don't get the modern fixation with statistics and after reading this thread and listening to the so called expert on 5 live last season (Rory Smith) go on about xG I still don't understand what it is trying to indicates, is it chances created and/or effectiveness of strikers. On Saturday apparently we had 16 shots, the only time there keeper was troubled was from a Lenihan header (is that an xG?), or are we talking about the shots which were so close to chances I can't really remember them, like when Watmore worked a good position for himself and shot tamely over or Mowatt wasted a free kick in the first half?

People have always been interested in stats, it's just we have far better records now and far better data, so people can be interested in more depth.

xG is the total sum of the quality of chances created, by summing up the probability of each of those chances of being a goal, for an average chance/ player in that position, in that league. The best they had were a 9%, 8%, 6%, 5% we had 30% Mowatt, 17% Forss, 17% Mowatt, 15% Lenihan, 10% Lenihan plus an 8,7,6,6,5. Effectively we had 5 better chances than their best chance.

Go here and click xG map, and it will show you where all the shots/ chances were, and what the expected goals is.

Infogol

www.infogol.net

Can't measure how effective the striker is, unless over a large number of shots/ chances, but the table for last years top scorers is here:

FotMob

FotMob is the essential app for matchday. Get live scores, fixtures, tables, match stats, and personalised news from over 500 football leagues around the world.

www.fotmob.com

 

[Otto42]

People have always been interested in stats, it's just we have far better records now and far better data, so people can be interested in more depth.

xG is the total sum of the quality of chances created, by summing up the probability of each of those chances of being a goal, for an average chance/ player in that position, in that league. The best they had were a 9%, 8%, 6%, 5% we had 30% Mowatt, 17% Forss, 17% Mowatt, 15% Lenihan, 10% Lenihan plus an 8,7,6,6,5. Effectively we had 5 better chances than their best chance.

Go here and click xG map, and it will show you where all the shots/ chances were, and what the expected goals is.

Infogol

www.infogol.net

Can't measure how effective the striker is, unless over a large number of shots/ chances, but the table for last years top scorers is here:

FotMob

FotMob is the essential app for matchday. Get live scores, fixtures, tables, match stats, and personalised news from over 500 football leagues around the world.

www.fotmob.com

Thanks, as I thought that suggests that we had better chances to score than Reading? Having been at the game, as I posted earlier, we had one good chance, which the keeper saved and they had one speculative shot that they scored. The other chances we supposedly had, better than the one they scored from, we never looked like scoring from and I wouldn't necessarily have expected us to score from (probably why they are all 30% or less)!

This tells me that while why may have had better xG than Reading it was slim pickings all round, a game of few clear cut chances. From a Boro perspective it also tells me that we need to be creating better chances, so it's about the creating better chances rather than getting a better goalscorer? This has been our problem for years, so I suppose the statistic evidences what I thought?

A bit too much like work for me, think I'll stick to spouting irrational prejudiced ***** when it comes to football - much more enjoyable

 

[Andy_W]

Thanks, as I thought that suggests that we had better chances to score than Reading? Having been at the game, as I posted earlier, we had one good chance, which the keeper saved and they had one speculative shot that they scored. The other chances we supposedly had, better than the one they scored from, we never looked like scoring from and I wouldn't necessarily have expected us to score from (probably why they are all 30% or less)!

This tells me that while why my have had better xG than Reading it was slim pickings all round, a game of few clear cut chances. From a Boro perspective it also tells me that we need to be creating better chances, so it's about the creating better chances rather than getting a better goalscorer? This has been our problem for years, so I suppose the statistic evidences what I thought?

A bit too much like work for me, think I'll stick to spouting irrational prejudiced ***** when it comes to football - much more enjoyable

Yes, we definitely did have better chances, I watched it on iFollow, thought the same during the game, thought the same watching the highlights and thought the xG actually appeared a little close than it should have been, but I suppose that doesn't factor possession, dangerous attacks, crooks penalty which looked onside, their goal which was offside.

I think you might have had too much to drink at the game, or a bad view. Their best chance was at a very wide angle with keeper and defenders in front.

I don't know what the number of chances scored are which are above 50%, I bet it's not many compared to the total goals which go in, as even a Penalty is around 80% I think.

The way I read the stats, we're creating enough chances, as our xG is one of the highest in the League, but we're not scoring enough (even thoughts till scoring a lot), but it's at the back where we're being robbed more, through luck and decisions. Players will always make mistakes at the back and you will concede chances, but we're being unfairly punished. The goals conceded are 50% more than the xGa (expected goals against). Even Mitrovic was only scoring +125% of xG, so to be at like +150% goals conceded than expected is a bit rough, it's not like it's Lewandowski shooting, and even a lot of those were fouls.

 

[Otto42]

Yes, we definitely did have better chances, I watched it on iFollow, thought the same during the game, thought the same watching the highlights and thought the xG actually appeared a little close than it should have been, but I suppose that doesn't factor possession, dangerous attacks, crooks penalty which looked onside, their goal which was offside.

I think you might have had too much to drink at the game, or a bad view. Their best chance was at a very wide angle with keeper and defenders in front.

I don't know what the number of chances scored are which are above 50%, I bet it's not many compared to the total goals which go in, as even a Penalty is around 80% I think.

The way I read the stats, we're creating enough chances, as our xG is one of the highest in the League, but we're not scoring enough (even thoughts till scoring a lot), but it's at the back where we're being robbed more, through luck and decisions. Players will always make mistakes at the back and you will concede chances, but we're being unfairly punished. The goals conceded are 50% more than the xGa (expected goals against). Even Mitrovic was only scoring +125% of xG, so to be at like +150% goals conceded than expected is a bit rough, it's not like it's Lewandowski shooting, and even a lot of those were fouls.

I guess my overall impression coming away from the game backs this up, thought nil nil would have been a fair result, as goal aside they did very little up top, but that was their game plan after scoring!

 

[Andy_W]

I guess my overall impression coming away from the game backs this up, thought nil nil would have been a fair result, as goal aside they did very little up top, but that was their game plan after scoring!

They had that game plan before they scored too, but they just amplified it after the goal.

I thought 1-0 would have been fair, maybe 2-0 given the additional pressure, attacks, penalty shout etc. xG says we should have beat them 1.4-0.39, which is a 1 goal margin to us, so to come away -1, says we're 2 goals worse off than probability, which sucks, but it's not a reason for me to say we played crap or deserved a loss, as we certainly didn't.

 

[Otto42]

They had that game plan before they scored too, but they just amplified it after the goal.

I thought 1-0 would have been fair, maybe 2-0 given the additional pressure, attacks, penalty shout etc. xG says we should have beat them 1.4-0.39, which is a 1 goal margin to us, so to come away -1, says we're 2 goals worse off than probability, which sucks, but it's not a reason for me to say we played crap or deserved a loss, as we certainly didn't.

Tbf, without checking the stats, we probably haven’t deserved to lose any this season - we had some good chances second half against QPR, could have won both our home games and chucked it away with poor game management at Stoke. Early days and as I have said elsewhere no need to panic just yet!