Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Brighton

[onmeedson]

All credit to Unai and the players, when the opposition give us time the system work's and it work's well. Great to see JJ back and a bit of the McGinn we know is there, Konsa was back as a leader and Watkin's had a glorious day he just need's to learn to dink a ball when the keeper is bearing down. We controlled a game and dominated the vital position's, Cash had their main man under control and the defence sent it long every now and again.

[tinker]

Emery master class, using the mid block, playing the ball upto Ollie  and then competing aggressively for the second ball in the middle, once Ollie or their defenders knocked it back into the middle, was the difference.

We struggled to control the game early in the second half but eventually a quick break curtailed Brightons pressing.

Obviously Ollie takes the crown but we all knew he had it in him, didn't we?,  after the Chelsea goal, he's such a confidence player. 

The real difference though was the midfield with both McGinn and Kamara getting involved fighting for second balls aggressively and making Brighton uncomfortable on the ball, Doug is just Doug, he's becoming one of the stand out midfielders in the premier league, range of passing and his movement on and off the ball are just first class, he's always asking for the ball.

Konsa, he's stepped up, his pace seems to be improving to add another dimension to his game. Southgate has got to bring him in.

Martinez,  Cash , Dignes , Diaby all good...... Ramsey, look left then turned right for his goal, quality , Zaniolo is still struggling to find his feet, needs a goal. 

Torres, still physically struggles in certain situations but he's getting better, didnt give up once he was  shrugged off, like he had in previous games........but my god when he started stepping out into the middle,.late in the game,  with the ball at his feet he looks majestic, Franco Baresi MK2.  I see a legend in the making with him, he's special. 

Great game to be a Villa fan, they come along every 5 years or so. UTV 

[HKP90]

I've been away this weekend so missed this one unfortunately. I'm delighted with that result. Brighton were bang in league form before yesterday, but much like us struggled in the league and Euro competitions. They are a cracking team and I expected us to drop points at the very least. 

That we responded so well to our recent disappointments, while Brighton failed to get going is a testament to Unai.

I respect Brighton and Di Zerbi a lot. But Unai is next level.

 

[TRO]

2 hours ago, Sulberto21 said:

10 on the bounce 6 clean sheets, 4 goals conceded. Maybe the ‘poor’ defensive displays are overblown and exaggerated. ? 

when they happen, maybe they're not.

The overall progress is great....If you are saying we have to accept poor performances along  the way without making reference to them, thats sad.

Unai himself, will be addressing those poor performances, why can't we?

[turvontour]

I wonder how many goals we need to score to be first on match of the day. About 17?

Cheers of match of the day too to say that this was the first time we've scored 5 league goals in a game since the Forest 5 - 5 in the championship. 

We'll just wipe that Liverpool game from everyones memory shall we. 

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[WHY]

Could someone please explain how xG works. Actually don’t bother as it’s pointless. Yesterday we had 9 shots on target scoring 6, Brighton had 3 shots on target, scoring 1. In the fantasy world of expected goals, Brightons xG was higher than ours, which was 1.49

[picicata]

46 minutes ago, WHY said:

Could someone please explain how xG works. Actually don’t bother as it’s pointless. Yesterday we had 9 shots on target scoring 6, Brighton had 3 shots on target, scoring 1. In the fantasy world of expected goals, Brightons xG was higher than ours, which was 1.49

I'm not a great believer in the whole xG stat thing, certainly on a individual game basis. As you've stated, we were obviously the team more likely to score more goals yesterday as we created more chances, better chances and took more shots.

Over the course of a run of games it can point out when you're over achieving compared to your actual performance but, in reality, doesn't tell you much more than your own eyes would tell you.

It's existence probably justifies someone's job

Edited October 1, 2023 by picicata

[veloman]

Couldn't go today; confined to barracks 'cos wife recovering from serious op; so I watched BT Sport or whatever it's called now. The commentator said Southgate would receive a "warm welcome back at the club he played for". Anyone else think that might be slightly incorrect ? 

[Davkaus]

40 minutes ago, WHY said:

Could someone please explain how xG works. Actually don’t bother as it’s pointless. Yesterday we had 9 shots on target scoring 6, Brighton had 3 shots on target, scoring 1. In the fantasy world of expected goals, Brightons xG was higher than ours, which was 1.49

Well, their shots were from far more promising positions than each of ours - their goal probably had a far higher xG than any of ours. Most of the time a hattrick isn't scored from the 3 chances that Watkins scored, his first one is probably the only one that had anything close to an xG of 1. Most of the time a strike from Douglas Luiz's position doesn't have the keeper completely flat footed.

It's a stat to show the relative quality of attacking chances, but weird things do happen. My nan smoked 40 a day and never got lung cancer. 

Outperforming xG isn't some damning indictment that we didn't deserve to win, IMO. Our strikers were more clinical than average. Good.

[sheepyvillian]

4 hours ago, Sulberto21 said:

10 on the bounce 6 clean sheets, 4 goals conceded. Maybe the ‘poor’ defensive displays are overblown and exaggerated. ? 

The thing is when we do struggle defensively, it's always the whole defence, not just any individual, which is strange when you consider how good we've been in certain games.

I suppose you have to factor in who we are up against too. However, Legia and Everton were completely unforgivable, just a total lack of focus. 

[turvontour]

1 hour ago, Brumstopdogs said:

 

I think thats what theyd like. The grass was too long from memory. 

[srsmithusa]

10 hours ago, TRO said:

I suspect JJ won't go unnoticed to the discerning eye either.

So, not Southgate then

[The_Rev]

1 hour ago, WHY said:

Could someone please explain how xG works. Actually don’t bother as it’s pointless. Yesterday we had 9 shots on target scoring 6, Brighton had 3 shots on target, scoring 1. In the fantasy world of expected goals, Brightons xG was higher than ours, which was 1.49

 

 

It's computer model based on the quality of chances created.  Basically every shot that ever happens in the Premier League (and other major leagues) gets recorded and put into the data so there is a record for every position which can be compared to the shot you just took.  Brighton's xG was high yesterday because Ansu Fati's goal was him shooting into an unguarded net from four yards, compare that to  JJ's which was from outside the box with defenders and the keeper to beat. Depending on whose model you use, Fati's goal was worth something like 0.6 while JJ's was worth 0.05 (source) and the own goal was worth nothing at all because own goals don't count for xG. 

 

 

You can see it here, Brighton had three "big" opportunities, which I believe would have been Estupinan's shot which was comfortably saved by Dibu, the header Solly March put into row Z and their goal, but xG isn't supposed to be a metric used to show who should have won an individual match. It doesn't account for things like the defenders backing off of JJ yesterday and inviting him to shoot, it doesn't care who the chances fall to either, so Estupinan's chance would be worth the same regardless of whether it fell to him or to Harry Kane.   The main point of xG is reading into longer term trends, the obvious one is it highlights good strikers who will consistently overperform their xG because they are reliable finishers but it can be used to highlight areas of the pitch where it's worth trying to get the ball into (why do you think cutbacks into the six yard box have suddenly become so popular?) and it can show which teams are over reliant on certain players or which teams have a striker holding them back. 

 

TLDR:  Don't worry about it.  

[WHY]

5 minutes ago, The_Rev said:

 

 

It's computer model based on the quality of chances created.  Basically every shot that ever happens in the Premier League (and other major leagues) gets recorded and put into the data so there is a record for every position which can be compared to the shot you just took.  Brighton's xG was high yesterday because Ansu Fati's goal was him shooting into an unguarded net from four yards, compare that to  JJ's which was from outside the box with defenders and the keeper to beat. Depending on whose model you use, Fati's goal was worth something like 0.6 while JJ's was worth 0.05 (source) and the own goal was worth nothing at all because own goals don't count for xG. 

 

 

You can see it here, Brighton had three "big" opportunities, which I believe would have been Estupinan's shot which was comfortably saved by Dibu, the header Solly March put into row Z and their goal, but xG isn't supposed to be a metric used to show who should have won an individual match. It doesn't account for things like the defenders backing off of JJ yesterday and inviting him to shoot, it doesn't care who the chances fall to either, so Estupinan's chance would be worth the same regardless of whether it fell to him or to Harry Kane.   The main point of xG is reading into longer term trends, the obvious one is it highlights good strikers who will consistently overperform their xG because they are reliable finishers but it can be used to highlight areas of the pitch where it's worth trying to get the ball into (why do you think cutbacks into the six yard box have suddenly become so popular?) and it can show which teams are over reliant on certain players or which teams have a striker holding them back. 

 

TLDR:  Don't worry about it.  

Thanks for explaining that mate, think I will stick to using my eyesight though, always found this to be the best way. 

[rjw63]

Can't remember us getting six many times over the decades, Sunderland at home was the most recent.

Also I am pretty sure we humped ipswich 6-1 the week before they won the FA Cup.

And the seven we got against Wimbledong.

[sne]

10 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

Can't remember us getting six many times over the decades, Sunderland at home was the most recent.

Also I am pretty sure we humped ipswich 6-1 the week before they won the FA Cup.

And the seven we got against Wimbledong.

That Liverpool win was pretty nice too. 

[rjw63]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

That Liverpool win was pretty nice too. 

So recent I totally forgot it

[Hev]

Am watching recording of yesterday's coverage on TNT. Am impressed with the pre-game coverage. They went in changing rooms , talked to fans outside and even saw inside Terrace View. 

[Sulberto21]

It’s on the discovery + app all 4hr 1 minute of coverage.