Mr_Dogg Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 29 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: To be fair to him, Sky have just flashed some stats up and WBA would be top of the league on XG and XG against. Perhaps all that does is show the flaws in the XG system but it sounds like they’ve generally been doing okay but just not able to stick the ball in the back of net with any consistency. Anyway, surely time to retire now Steve, 40 odd consecutive years in the game must have taken its toll. Their xG is 19 and they've scored 17. It's just too many draws really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Kinnell, another nice big payoff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 12 clubs in 24 years and think one cup final to show for it and no positive legacy at any club he worked at. blues probably his best work and got them relegated they even went down the season he walked out on them. The shittest manager of the British clogger types that were around in mid 2000s. Good riddance football will be a better place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted October 10, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 10, 2022 He could go to Boro maybe? He’s done a trio of west mids clubs, he could complete another hat trick in the north east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 25 minutes ago, Zatman said: 12 clubs in 24 years and think one cup final to show for it and no positive legacy at any club he worked at. blues probably his best work and got them relegated they even went down the season he walked out on them. The shittest manager of the British clogger types that were around in mid 2000s. Good riddance football will be a better place It’s a damning indictment of the old boys network in English football that he ever had such consistent work. A turgid, regressive dinosaur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 He’s probably manufactured the sack so he can rest up and take over from Southgate post World Cup… suddenly nuclear Armageddon doesn’t appear to be a bad option 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Wurzel Posted October 10, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2022 This is harsh from Sky Sports News 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 6 hours ago, a m ole said: I was actually amazed to see he’s never had any association with Wolves, I was sure he’d been there before. Think I confused him with Steve Bull. Steve Bull best player in history apparently despite playing about an hour in the top flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted October 10, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 10, 2022 28 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said: Steve Bull best player in history apparently despite playing about an hour in the top flight He was in the squad for Italia '90 I believe. Or the world Cup after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 19 minutes ago, HKP90 said: He was in the squad for Italia '90 I believe. Or the world Cup after it. His goal per minute scoring record for England is really high, only scored 4 goals so I'm guessing most of his caps were late sub appearances when Lineker had enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 36 minutes ago, HKP90 said: He was in the squad for Italia '90 I believe. Or the world Cup after it. think Wolves were in the 3rd division at the time 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Alex is gonna tweet angrily at the official club’s account for being mean to his daddy. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bloke. Hopefully he will retire now and go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 8 hours ago, Zatman said: 12 clubs in 24 years and think one cup final to show for it and no positive legacy at any club he worked at. blues probably his best work and got them relegated they even went down the season he walked out on them. The shittest manager of the British clogger types that were around in mid 2000s. Good riddance football will be a better place He did well at Hull in fairness, two promotions, FA cup final as you say and they haven't come close to promotion since he left (indeed had a season in league one). Allam ownership wasn't easy to work for either with fans in revolt. That was high point for him though in last decade as he ultimately failed with us, walked out on Sheff Weds after six months, was at his negative worst managing his boyhood team and his record at West Brom been a disaster. Will surely retire now. I remember when he took one of those jobs he actually delayed by a week as he was watching England play cricket in the Carribean so I was amazed he actually took the West Brom job. He's not an appointment that's going to excite any fanbase now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 He has a net worth of around £40m. Surely he's not after the money still!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 11, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 11, 2022 18 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: To be fair to him, Sky have just flashed some stats up and WBA would be top of the league on XG and XG against. To be frank, it only shows the flaws in xG if you don’t understand xG. It shows they’re not being clinical enough and letting in soft goals (This sounds like I’m having a pop. I don’t mean it that way, I just mean xG is commonly misinterpreted to be a predictor of goals. It’s not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mark Albrighton Posted October 11, 2022 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted October 11, 2022 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daft Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 26 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said: Honestly, the biggest crime in that revelation is the sentence structure. Should be straight to the gallows for that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 5 hours ago, Stevo985 said: To be frank, it only shows the flaws in xG if you don’t understand xG. It shows they’re not being clinical enough and letting in soft goals (This sounds like I’m having a pop. I don’t mean it that way, I just mean xG is commonly misinterpreted to be a predictor of goals. It’s not) ‘Expected goals’ and ‘expected goals against’ isn’t a predictor of goals? I thought that’s exactly what it is?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 11, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 11, 2022 52 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: ‘Expected goals’ and ‘expected goals against’ isn’t a predictor of goals? I thought that’s exactly what it is?! Nope, not really. The misconception people have is that xG is meant to predict the result of certain games, which just isn't what it's for. It's a measure of how many goals on average a team would score form the chances they've had. How many goals you would EXPECT to score. But it's an average taken from thousands and thousands of data points. So it's more of an average baseline to measure a team or a player's performance against. If a team has an xG of 3 in a game but only score one, the usual thing you hear is "ha xG is nonsense, it's miles off" That's not how it works. What that is telling you is that on average, with the chances you've had, a team would score 3 goals. if you've only scored 1 then that tells you've been wasteful. You've either missed a load of chances or their goalkeeper has played a blinder. It's basically a far more accurate version of "shots on target". By it's very nature xG won't often match the actual scoreline because the sample size of one game is too small. For example the xG of a penalty is around 0.7. So if a team has a penalty and misses, you're already looking at an xG of 0.7 vs a score of 0. Over a long time those numbers will likely converge to be very similar, but over 90 minutes that isn't going to happen. Honestly, the worst thing about xG is the name, because it breeds this misconception of what it's for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 48 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Nope, not really. The misconception people have is that xG is meant to predict the result of certain games, which just isn't what it's for. It's a measure of how many goals on average a team would score form the chances they've had. How many goals you would EXPECT to score. But it's an average taken from thousands and thousands of data points. So it's more of an average baseline to measure a team or a player's performance against. If a team has an xG of 3 in a game but only score one, the usual thing you hear is "ha xG is nonsense, it's miles off" That's not how it works. What that is telling you is that on average, with the chances you've had, a team would score 3 goals. if you've only scored 1 then that tells you've been wasteful. You've either missed a load of chances or their goalkeeper has played a blinder. It's basically a far more accurate version of "shots on target". By it's very nature xG won't often match the actual scoreline because the sample size of one game is too small. For example the xG of a penalty is around 0.7. So if a team has a penalty and misses, you're already looking at an xG of 0.7 vs a score of 0. Over a long time those numbers will likely converge to be very similar, but over 90 minutes that isn't going to happen. Honestly, the worst thing about xG is the name, because it breeds this misconception of what it's for Thanks for explaining though I think I got all that already, I’ve always taken it as a means that a team has played pretty well and that individual errors have been the issue (in the case of having a higher XG and a lower XGa versus the actual result). By that reckoning WBA have actually been playing okay but just not sticking the ball away and not doing enough in moments at the back - which seems eerily familiar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts