"They could have scored 5 or 6"

Acting like a goalkeeper making good saves is somehow cheating

This xD rating shit gets on my nerves.

The only reason you have posted this thread is because we are so shit that teams could have scored against us many more times than they did. Yeah sure, 5 or 6 goals means high efficiency but both Villareal and Everton could have and should have won this weak. We were lucky, extremely lucky.

That expression never takes into account the mental aspect or football. If the first goal is conceded then very often it affects the teams in question physiologically (one would start to waste time while the other would wake up to try equalizing) so the so-called 2nd/3rd/4th golden chances don't happen like they happened in the real game. It's just a stupid thing to easy.
Game and emotional dynamics basically thrown outta the window

2 man midfield said:

Acting like a goalkeeper making good saves is somehow cheating

Click to expand...

The worst.

kouroux said:

That expression never takes into account the mental aspect or football. If the first goal is conceded then very often it affects the teams in question physiologically (one would start to waste time while the other would wake up to try equalizing) so the so-called 2nd/3rd/4th golden chances don't happen like they happened in the real game. It's just a stupid thing to easy.
Game and emotional dynamics basically thrown outta the window

Click to expand...

That depends on the mentality of the team. Some teams just keep attacking no matter what. Just look at Flick's Bayern, they did not slow down, so they got results like 8-2 against Barca.

But it does show the ease with which the teams are creating chances against us though, you don't see that with any of the other top 6 PL teams

Why are people surprised that the team that sits back and hits on the counter attack will look better with more space to attack?

Our defensive midfield organisation is very poor so that makes it even worse than expected, but sides that go for the win are more likely to concede chances because the high line and space created from trying to stretch the low block leave you vulnerable - which is why a lot of us think a midfielder like Rice would be a good signing for us since he sniffs out danger and is fairly press resistant too.

It's all about the xg, xgot, xs, psxg, xnxx and xhamster.

The last 2 are of more use to football fans and pundits than the rest.

stefan92 said:

That depends on the mentality of the team. Some teams just keep attacking no matter what. Just look at Flick's Bayern, they did not slow down, so they got results like 8-2 against Barca.

Click to expand...

Yes but in most cases both teams change their tactics/mentality after a goal or 2. Bayern is exceptional in that regard, they want blood all the time

"They wouldn't have scored goals if their players weren't capable of producing individual brilliance"

Alright mate. You know why we bought these players in the first place?

I find the phrase annoying aswell. More so when say team has flurry of chances e.g. keeper saves and then a minute later same team hits post from resultant corner.

In post match analysis someone will then say team could've scored two goals from that but of course if the first goes in the second dosen't happen as you kick off, opposition gets behind the ball etc.

Different of course if you finish up with 8-10 shots on target and keeper is pulling off miracle saves for 4 or 5 of them and then it's true.

Sky's obsession with "touches in the opposition box" gets on my nerves.

Half and full time of almost every game "and look at that only 11 touches in the opposition box!"...and? This doesn't mean anything if you bring it up in every single game. Why is it more important than how many shots, chances created, passes completed, etc?

They never follow it up with any context. They just say it then make generic statements like "yes they just aren't doing enough to hurt the opposition" ignoring that often the opposition will basically have exactly the same amount.

I think they paid out a fortune for a touches in the opposition box machine and now are just trying to milk their money's worth from it.

It annoys me when they'll count 2 shots at goal within the same move as 2 possible goals.

A shot comes in, the keeper saves it, the ball breaks to them again and a couple of passes later they have another shot that's saved. Well that's not 2 potential goals as the second doesn't happen if the first one goes in but its a good way of conflating one moment of pressure as being a sustained run of chances conceded

All punditry is bollocks though tbf

It only takes basic logic to know that its bollocks. If you had 5 clear chances doesnt mean you could have scored 5 because after you score the first one, the match changes, opposition might play better and its impossible for the next 4 chances to happen in the exact same way. Its a real time game not a fecking replica.

The thing is if a team scored once, they might well change their game play and tactic and not score again. The second to fifth chances of those chances will never have happened at all.

When a game is very even, one team scores and then the narrative suddenly changes to "team X have been poor, team Y have been excellent"

I think it's an indication on the attacking intent of the team in reference. Scoreline very rarely tells the full story. Nothing wrong with the statement. Old man shakes fist at clouds.

Lentwood said:

When a game is very even, one team scores and then the narrative suddenly changes to "team X have been poor, team Y have been excellent"

Click to expand...

Kind of like a pen being good or poor depending on whether it's saved or not, even if the pens are identical.

PogBruno said:

But it does show the ease with which the teams are creating chances against us though, you don't see that with any of the other top 6 PL teams

Click to expand...

That’s because people don’t watch other teams.
The latest being the team at top of the table.
Against Villa they should been annihilated last week.

I take as more for a way to emphasize how one team was much more dominant than the other.

A similar situation would be - team A being denied a goal due to a great save or a referee error, and later team B going on to score to be 1-0 during half time. Pundits routinely say the score should be 1-1 for such instances.

I don't agree with either of the situations. Because scoring goals changes the game situation. If a team score 3 goals in your scenario, then they're less likely to score further goals because the effort involved is a lot higher than the reward of thumping a team or building a goal difference. Usually you'll have the thumpings when one team has completely given up on the match. Similarly, in the other scenario if team A scores, they are in a positive frame of mind, and team B are chasing the game, which can very well result in team A being 1-0 by half time.

A corollary to this would be when fans argue that the referee made wrong decisions against both the teams during the match, so they equal out after the final whistle.

Isn't this what xG tries to negate? I know some people hate it but it does have some value somewhere I think.