Bugzy1991

No you're making things up. Where have I claimed that Liverpool don't deserve to be top? Where I have claimed that Liverpool are lucky to be top? I've repeatedly said it's the margin which is lucky.

Yes in that xg table which I didn't post.. Which I said it's not that out of the ordinary for that to happen. Now go read the following posts after. Where did I say it's all down to luck?

This isn't how it works lol. Genuine question...one team shoots 100000 shots at goal. Hits the post every shot. The other team parked the bus and they scored on one chance. Are they lucky or are they not? Now do a way less extreme point with how Newcastle played and how the games were played over a 4 game sample... And then do a less extreme point with trying to claim that Liverpool equity in all these games are 3 points per game.

Yeh you misunderstood. It's more like on average they get 0.7points from a lot of these games. The way they're playing they get 0.7points from the games. So when they win multiple in a row it's crazy lucky. The closer to the average point they get, the less lucky they are.

Yes. I'll try find later. If it can't be used as a predictor then it's entirely meaningless stat when trying to do a league table as it gives 0 weight to it. (If it's wrong in predicting future results, how can it be right about previous results and what gives it weight?) Again its flawed like crazy in certain areas. But it's better than a lot of things out there.

Just use xg as a better way of using "form". It's heavily flawed due to the nature that Messi will have same shot chance % as mings which is obviously bullshit. But at the same time it's a better predictor of future results than using stats like form, goals, chances created, possession, biased eyetest or whatever.

What. This is mental. I suggest you go read the posts again lol nowhere did I say Liverpool are top because of luck. I said the MARGIN is down to luck. The huge fkin margin. Just stop mate. I said it's not out of the ordinary about the xg table. Because it isn't lol? I also said I don't fully agree with xg. Stop with your hard on for me and read posts fully next time. I literally said "yeh possibly/probably" they deserve to be top. but are they 13 / 19 in your klopp solved world better than city..hahah no chance. It's way closer

What you on about? What's mental is to suggest that Liverpool are 13 (19 given you think klopp has solved football and is now unbeatable) better than city. What's mental is that you think every game apart from one this year liverpools equity has been 3 points per game Games with a huge amount of randomness and chance doesn't work like that. They're overperforming and getting lucky. City are "underperforming" and getting unlucky. Newcastle are overperforming and getting lucky. Anyone who's into stats and games know it. Bookies knows it. People who win at sportsbetting know it. You just have a fundamental flaw about sample size and results and how luck influences a lot of it.

What. Lol. You think liverpool is 19points better than city this year? (Two games in hand and klopp has solved football) City have been pretty crazy unlucky this year. And Liverpool lucky. Not that much difference between the two if you watch every game.

It'll be more than that. 100m is the price of staying up. Our equity of staying up must drop dramatically if we sold grealish. Then you got his actual player fee to add on top of that. It'll likely be 150-200m

By that margin, yes. Do they deserve to be leading? Yes possibly/probably. By 13 points with 2 games in hand? No. They are not better than city this year by that margin and it isn't close. Are you telling me Liverpool have turned into a 21 gaming winning side and only drawing one? Klopp has solved football. Whilst city losing 5 games at this stage of the season.

Yes they will be 1 or 2 points below city like the previous season. What's the issue there? City have been getting unlucky in games and Liverpool lucky. Not that out of ordinary there.

That totally depends what youre using it for. And I'm not even a fan of xg all that much. It has its flawed but its also better in some areas.

Well by the margin they're doing it by then yes, they are. Obviously they're getting lucky. Unless you're suggesting winning 21 games and drawing 1 over 22 games is their standard now. Which obviously isn't true.

Letting haaland go to Dortmund is a huge mistake. Not paying 20m more and signing koulibaly instead of slabhead is a huge mistake. Keeping ole and not having poch as their manager is a huge mistake. Not having Bruno Fernandes signed already is a huge mistake. Phil Jones still managing to get playing time is a huge mistake. United management are a joke and is rotten.

Cracking finish. Burnley were always going to stay up. Don't mind them winning here. Actually enjoy it. Great seeing United being a failure over and over

Nah mate. Sample size doesn't matter and it's a results orientated business over short samples. He's that good at over achieving he's got some major top jobs in England...oh wait...

Because you guys keep trying to claim that being hard to beat defensively means you have a greater point average and it's close to what they achieved?? Go look at how this topic started....it's INSANELY lucky they achieved 10 points from those 4 fixtures. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand sample size at all. If you try to claim it isn't luck, go find a good sample size with the way they're playing and the return they got. You won't even find a team who has half the point total over a sample. Dyche comes into it because apparently Bruce is a good at getting results against top teams whilst an equally or better defensive team gets absolutely tanked every game... Almost like it's a short sample size and there's a huge amount of luck involved. Sure someone will come back with some nonsense that bruce is so good at getting results against top6. Dyche is in envy whilst being a better manager and is known to set up defenses to reduce shot quality of opposition. Steve Bruce is a god

So yes then. Someone literally claimed the results he got wasn't due to luck. This is twice you done this in one week. Want me to quote him saying it was nothing to do with luck? Nice to hear your lack of replies about dyche...guess he's an awful manager against top 6 whilst setting up exactly the same

Yes when you think there isn't a huge part of luck involved with getting 10points out of 12 with those fixtures. If you don't think most of it is down to luck, you have to think it's down to the tactical genius of Steve Bruce. So what's the reasons why dyche is failing miserably. But Bruce can do it? It's huge amount of luck over 4 fixtures.

Burnley have got absolutely tanked by all the top teams this season. So what's the magic potion Bruce is employing that dyche isn't? Dyche is seen as a way better defensive and counter attacking manager as Bruce. Maybe Bruce somehow creates some voodoo before the game to stop opposition from scoring and his team scoring nearly every chance they get. Shame he can't employ the same throughout the rest of the season with all the other teams. Maybe it's just luck and sample size of 4 games...

Element of luck? It's probably upper 90% luck. Find me some data which allows that many shots at their goal whilst having so little opportunities themselves against top teams and it being even half sustainable. Let alone 10 points from those fixtures. You just won't be able to. Newcastle got insanely lucky. No debate about it. You can definitely blame luck for it. I'm just surprised Bruce is more of a tactical genius than dyche being able to set up a bus and magically deny opposition from scoring. Bruce is one of the greats against top 6 opposition whilst in a budget due to his amazing defensive setups. Dyche is jealous

Are you seriously suggesting they get close to 10 points playing the same way on average? He's got incredibly lucky with his points total in those games. To suggest luck hasn't played a huge role is remarkable. Probably gets less than 3 points over a large sample of the games played. Steve Bruce really is a tactical genius against top teams on this forum.

To say it's nothing to do with luck is laughable. Steve Bruce is a tactical genius that he's guarenteed 10points in those 4 fixtures. Outsmarting all other managers around him and out classing the top teams. I wonder how amazing this tactical genius record is when managing other teams on average against the top sides. With such an amazing return and non luck approach, I'm amazed he's not managing a much better team Surprised to see Burnley getting absolutely tanked playing somewhat similar against top teams. Maybe Bruce is just better than dyche at managing to use his mindpower to make opposition miss a million shots whilst they score with only 2 over such a short sample.

Hope you're not actually expecting us to get anywhere close to 10 points from those fixtures. Totally unrealistic and just because Bruce managed to be extremely lucky over those games doesn't mean that's where the benchmark should be set. One win would be a good return from those fixtures.