I thought Ronaldo not pressing is the problem. Oh well.
United and xG (now that Ole is gone will things change?)
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
My bad, it was actually the awfully-coached thread.
See this post, my response, and the ensuing discussion - this post , which I responded to with this and received this and this as supposed counterpoints.
The conclusion in my last post in that exchange ( I'm not sure we're going to stay as high in the table as we are playing the same way we have been ) seemed extremely obvious even then, but clearly not to these chaps.
Oh I do agree with you, I was just pointing out that he hasn't actually selected players even in the other roles that would be comfortable building from the back. Yes, the goalkeeper, main centre-back, holding midfielder, everyone is just incredibly incapable of playing modern passing game.
Basically that Cavani sitter he missed because it was so close and central makes up for most of our total xG.
I’m not sure quoting yourself and then a bunch of other quotes from another argument in a different thread - all in the name of “I told you so” - is as attractive a prospect for the reader as you think.
Feel free to not read it. I know the folks I tried engaging with in said "arguments" didn't either (:
Yes, the shot map is in the link below.
https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/...league/man-utd-vs-liverpool-2021-10-24/932769
That's because there is no counter argument, it's common sense to see we're as slap dash as they come when we attack.
my thoughts exactly.Guys, the Ole in movement is on its knees, now is the time to silently enjoy having the upper in the debate and making it even worse for them by being the bigger man by not rubbing it in needlessly. Noone cares about "I told you so".
Guys, the Ole in movement is on its knees, now is the time to silently enjoy having the upper in the debate and making it even worse for them by being the bigger man by not rubbing it in needlessly. Noone cares about "I told you so".
You could make a better effort to read the room an’ all.
Guys, the Ole in movement is on its knees, now is the time to silently enjoy having the upper in the debate and making it even worse for them by being the bigger man by not rubbing it in needlessly. Noone cares about "I told you so".
JFC
I meant enjoying the position in the debate in regards to "Ole - yay or nay", no need for boring "I told you so" posts. Did you think I meant to enjoy United situation as a whole?
Laurie Whitwell in The Athletic mentions the pressing issue
Sources have reported confusion over the style as a contributing factor. Solskjaer is said to have given an instruction to press high on Liverpool but players were confused by the exact coordination. In training, United do not train much pressing, with an explanation being that the strategy under Solskjaer is for the man nearest the ball to close down the opponent in possession as the team track back and get into shape.
I feel this is the same for playing out from the back with the players being given a vague idea rather than a system to follow.
Sources have reported confusion over the style as a contributing factor. Solskjaer is said to have given an instruction to press high on Liverpool but players were confused by the exact coordination. In training, United do not train much pressing, with an explanation being that the strategy under Solskjaer is for the man nearest the ball to close down the opponent in possession as the team track back and get into shape.
I feel this is the same for playing out from the back with the players being given a vague idea rather than a system to follow.
The defence were tighter and individual brilliance FC we’re on song but a similar story to usual.
https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/...league/tottenham-vs-man-utd-2021-10-30/932779
https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/...league/tottenham-vs-man-utd-2021-10-30/932779
That makes a mockery of xG in all honesty.
Not really sure how it's calculated. Rashford and Cavani both 1 on 1 with the keeper, and Spurs' only chance I remember is Son's in the first half. No idea how XG is even close tbh.
Why? The Ronaldo goal isn't a good chance, tight angle, very very good finish that. The other goals were good, so xg might have been a bit higher but only a bit. Both finishes were really good. I am sure fbref xg will have a bigger difference between the teams. But 1.3-1.5 seems quite fair to me. There was nothing we created. At least this time because we stayed in a good defensive shape all the time.
(edit: understat has us 1.39 vs 1.16, indicating two big chances of Spurs in first half. The quick counters were finished from quite far out (for one-on-ones) therefor not higher ranked (0.45 and 0.56).
Look how good the finishes were to score those goals but I do see what you’re saying. Son had a chance very close to goal which he spooned over and I think the other Spurs chance was a clear close header from a corner that went over too.
xGOT was 0 vs 2.5. Need to give our forwards some credit for turning water into wine. That’s fine to be part of the story. Spurs needed a heroic goalkeeping performance to keep a clean sheet with the finishes our lads provided.
I can't remember anything Spurs did to get close to 1 XG today, in fairness. That Son chance was suspiciously close to offside and would probably have been flagged if he'd managed to score.
Good performance, well worth the win.
Good performance, well worth the win.
Right but anyone who watched the game will tell you that Spurs never really threatens us and United deserved to win by 3 goals so what exactly is the point of xG again?
They did threaten us from a couple of set pieces but failed to score, we took our chances today. It suggests that the performance wasn’t as dominant as the score line suggests, the same that the rest of the other stats from the game suggests i.e. this is not a corner being turned, rather the continued instability of results you should expect from Oleball.
The point of xG isn't to tell you who won deservedly. It only tells you about the relative quality of shooting positions in one game. I know what you mean by doubting it but you are asking too much of it. There was the Son-chance in the first half which was from a good (promising, often successful in the past) position (0.45) and there seems to be a header from a corner (0.56) these values are often higher than from open play. So I agree, the difference between the teams should have been higher (based on my feeling as well) but as the other poster said, it took one worldclass finish and two very good ones to give us the scoreline we got.
These clowns didn't have a single shot on target in 90 mins 
I disagree that the Cavani and Rashford chances were difficult ones. They both took them excellently, but they were 1 on 1 with the goal keeper. Its pretty much as good as it gets for creating a chance surely.
For every day that passes I'm getting more and more convinced that xG is shite.
It depends on the distance from goal, the keeper’s positioning, the angle the attacker is shooting from and the defensive pressure. The best chances are generally close to goal and more central.
Maybe "difficult" or "easy" isn't the best way to look at it. XG looks at statistical data. How many shots from that position in a comparable situation ended in a goal.
Both our counters were finished from relatively wide out. I am sure, once the fbref xG is available, the difference between the sum of our xG and Spurs' will be more significant (as their xG calculation model take more factors into consideration).
Facts. I'd have been disappointed if they didn't score from there
What’s xGOT?
I’m sure you’re right But doesn’t Caley Graphics use a decent model too? On the Cavani goal the keeper manages to come out far enough to dive at his feet so it requires a nice chip and it’s quite far out. The Rashford finish is quite far out and at an angle. That said watching them again I do think they should be high be higher xG.
xG on target or post-shot xG. Normal xG is calculated based on quality of chance. xGOT or post-shot xG is calculated based on quality of shot, so anything off-target is zero and everything else is based on the degree of difficulty for the keeper to save.
I think normal xG looks a tad harsh on us, but really we came out dominant winners because our forwards were clinical – and that’s perfectly fine!
That’s the sticker though isn’t. It’s great when those forwards are on song but when they’re inevitably not a low xG means much less margin for error. Liverpool and City are vastly superior at creating chance than us so are more likely to win more of the time. This is the essential problem with Ole as manager.
Yes, longer term, but I think you are looking for a stick to beat Ole with tonight. United were winning for all the second half and still created some good further chances that were finished very well. Just looking at raw xG isn’t really meaningful given the game state.
Yeah, I had the same feeling. Thats why I say I am pretty sure, the fbref values will be a lot lower in general (especially for Spurs) which will make the difference between the teams bigger. Apart from that, as far as I know, a penalty is 0.76 or 0.75 xG. So in that light, I think the counters are ranked quite high with (0.56 and 0.45).
To be honest, I don't really know much about the Caley model nor about the specific differences of these models. What I know is that understat is pretty rough, taking position of the shot, lefty or righty and situation into consideration. The fbref model, as far as I understood, are way more sophisticated, looking additionally into height of the ball when the shot was made, position of defenders (or number of defenders between goal and shot).
I agree. Maybe xg doesn’t take in consideration the nature of the chance and only the position. From that pov the Rashford shot one on one is the same as the same shot in a packed box.
xG measures not only quality of chance but also quantity of them.
3-0 is partly deceptive because although Spurs were toothless, we were very clinical with the chances and half-chances we got, and so it creates the narrative that we were far and away more productive in xG production, when in fact we were simply just super efficient.
3-0 is partly deceptive because although Spurs were toothless, we were very clinical with the chances and half-chances we got, and so it creates the narrative that we were far and away more productive in xG production, when in fact we were simply just super efficient.
But have we really done that? I mean, the counters are a bit lucky weren't they. Both should have been defended easily. It wasn't like we were forcing stuff, more like Tottenham gifting something. But this isn't intended to beat Ole with. He provided defensive stability which was missing for the last 7 games. This a big plus mark in the calender. But the difficulty is bringing attack and defense in a balance, that is where we aren't good. And todays game did nothing to suggest otherwise. Which again sounds like criticism, but it isn't meant as that: it was a good result which we should be careful to get the wrong conclusions from.
State of play after GW10:
