The Athletic: Only in an alternate reality should Real Madrid be Champions League winners

[crossy1686]

Sorry, but your line of argument doesn't fit the conclusion. Everything you argue actually speaks in favor of xG, not against it.

And actually, what you do is much closer to astrology. Coincidence is coincidence and pretending it's not or that you have any control over it is everything but logical.

There’s no defence to xG! If a team has 3 xG and they lost to a team that has 0.5 what does that say?

“we were the better team! We didn’t deserve to lose!”

Yeah but all your shots were right at the keeper, your finishing was shit. The narrative is embarrassing for those that can’t accept they lost

 

[jem]

I care

And it has nothing to do with "football snobbery". Football is a sport which involves huge amounts of luck. Result oriented thinking is totally stupid in regards to football. Everything is about maximizing your chances. As the better team, it is about control and minimizing the factor of luck. It's no coincidence that the teams that play the most "attractive" way tend to win most of the trophies. Because "attractive" really just means, they have the best chances of winning. You don't build success on luck. That's what xG is trying to measure (and it is doing a relatively decent job at it, despite its various shortcomings).

‘result-oriented thinking is stupid with regard to football.’ Think for a minute just how ridiculous that sounds.

 

[Zehner]

Zehner what is your actual argument. All you've done here is repeat that Liverpool had higher xG than Real Madrid in ten different ways.

I'm not talking about the game but xG and football in general. People who dismiss xG principally (which the poster I'm arguing with does) don't understand the sport if you ask me.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I'm not talking about the game but xG and football in general. People who dismiss xG principally (which the poster I'm arguing with does) don't understand the sport if you ask me.

David Sumptner, the author of Soccermatics and a professor of Applied Mathematics, had this to say about xG:

At the start noise is high for both expected goals and goals. I suggest that when discussing one or two matches to stick to ‘Match report only’, write about what happened, tactics adopted, players movement etc. and speculate less about what this means about the team in the long term. There is no trend to be seen here, even in expected goals. Pundits saying “they won the match on expected goals” has no more meaning than the scoreline itself.

 

[jem]

I also don’t get why a good goalkeeping performance is somehow seen as being separate from a team’s performance. The keeper is a key part of the team. If he played well, then a significant aspect of the team played well.

 

[Zehner]

‘result-oriented thinking is stupid with regard to football.’ Think for a minute just how ridiculous that sounds.

I don't think you know what the term "result oriented thinking" means. It's a bias that assumes that everything that ends well was well.

 

[crossy1686]

‘result-oriented thinking is stupid with regard to football.’ Think for a minute just how ridiculous that sounds.

 

[Zehner]

David Sumptner, the author of Soccermatics and a professor of Applied Mathematics, had this to say about xG:

Yes, it can be wrong in the context of a single game (although I'd assume that more often than not it still reflects accurately who had the better quantity of chances * quality of chances) but that's not what I meant.

The discussion about xG is usually between two camps: One who see football as a simple game (goals count, everything else doesn't matter) and those who see it as a complicated game. IMO it is the latter. Football's low scoring nature and the fact that goals happen so rarely means that results are prone to a lot of randomness. There are probably very few sports in which the chances of the better team losing are as high as in football. Those who really understand the sport understand this nature and get that the best you can do is maximizing your chances of winning, you can't force it. So when you review yourself and see what you can do better, it is important to keep that in mind and not think result oriented - as in a shot that doesn't go in was a bad decision/execution and one that goes in was a good one. Or a successful dribbling that leads to no goal was pointless.

So to speak, xG is a proxy war between these two understandings. And I'm sure Sumptner would agree with me that it's not a simple but a complicated sport with lots of luck involved - and if he doesn't, he doesn't understand the sport either

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I also don’t get why a good goalkeeping performance is somehow seen as being separate from a team’s performance. The keeper is a key part of the team. If he played well, then a significant aspect of the team played well.

Yeah, I don't really get why a keeper making a good save is "lucky" - it's not lucky to have a good goalkeeper.

If a team hit the woodwork multiple times, or have penalty/red card decisions go agianst them, that would be unlucky.... not a keeper making good saves.

 

[Flexdegea]

Zehner what is your actual argument. All you've done here is repeat that Liverpool had higher xG than Real Madrid in ten different ways.

He just arguing for sake of it.


He's nearly at the stage where he thinks we should just rip up football as wee know it, and goals scored to win game don't matter, next he be telling us liverpool are still the best team in Europe even after losing the 2 biggest to prizes that at least prove they the best in england.


Trophies and goals don't matter any more, it's all about XG and opinion to cement the top spots.

 

[Ronaldo's ego]

XG this, XG that. Score one more goal than the opposition and you win, simple game.

 

[André Dominguez]

Should rename the article for "I am a sore loser and I want to rant about Real Madrid"

 

[crossy1686]

XG this, XG that. Score one more goal than the opposition and you win, simple game.

Woah mate, I don’t think you understand the game!

 

[Red the Bear]

Did the Germans do this when bayern leverkusen were beaten by Madrid in a pretty close match we're they had much better chances?
Pathetic.

 

[MUW4Eva]

What was the xG when we beat Ipswich and Southampton 9-0??

Who really cares, it is the final score that matters, nothing else does.

 

[The Corinthian]

Woah mate, I don’t think you understand the game!

 

[Posh Red]

Zehner what is your actual argument. All you've done here is repeat that Liverpool had higher xG than Real Madrid in ten different ways.

I, for one, am stunned that he’s defending the side managed by a German.

 

[Real Name]

Well this thread took a strange turn.

 

[The Brown Bull]

That's pub logic

Pub logic or not it’s the truth. Can you show me a cup final that was decided by the team with most shots? Or maybe the team with the most passes? Perhaps the team that played the more attractive football ?
We know the answer.

 

[The Brown Bull]

I was quietly confident that if Madrid managed to weather the first 20 minutes of Liverpool intensity they’d win. They always looked dangerous and passed it brilliantly through the scouse press.

My thoughts too. Pool needed to score early and often.

 

[Bepi]

Yeah, why play real, non-repeatable, high-variance knock-out football games?

 

[RedDevil@84]

Not sure about the xG BS, but Pool had 2 or 3 good shots in the whole game which needed Courtois to be really good. Others were normal saves and couple of them were straight at keeper.

 

[Zehner]

Pub logic or not it’s the truth. Can you show me a cup final that was decided by the team with most shots? Or maybe the team with the most passes? Perhaps the team that played the more attractive football ?
We know the answer.

I'm optimistic I can show you correlation.

 

[jem]

I don't think you know what the term "result oriented thinking" means. It's a bias that assumes that everything that ends well was well.

yeah but you’re just shoe-horning business jargon into a context (the CL final in this case) in which the result really is all that matters, no matter the route taken. I seriously doubt a team like Real Madrid will need to see this apparently lucky win as some kind of cautionary tale.

 

[jem]

Kind of wondering if Zehner is Jonathan Wilson’s alias…

 

[giorno]

Liverpool's post-shot xG was 3.5

They got Courtois'd

 

[crossy1686]

Liverpool's post-shot xG was 3.5

They got Courtois'd

Their finishing was mostly pretty poor, Courtois made some comfortable saves and a couple of good one's, something you would expect from a Real Madrid goalkeeper. Madrid could and should have been at least 2 goals to the good come the final whistle. The xG is total nonsense.

 

[do.ob]

Reminds me of when Chelsea won the CL in Munich and the German reporters were basically demanding an apology from them for winning in such a fashion during the post match interviews. I actually think Liverpool were clearly the better team in basically every aspect but the score line, but I don't understand how a seemingly serious outlet can publish such an article. Salty post match interviews are bad enough, though maybe understandable in the heat of the moment, but this must have made it past some editor(s).

 

[Madridista2000]

Their excuses... In 2018 they made it all about Salah. They said they lost because Salah got injured and their goalkeeper got concussion

In 2022 they announce revenge and this time Salah is motivated. He plays the whole game. They totally bottle it. Now they are saying why did RM not play like the Galacticos of 2004( Without defense) So Liverpool could win.

Liverpool played 3 finals and scored 0 goals. They are lucky they won the lottery 2/2 times to win 2 cups. Pipe down.

 

[Champ]

Yes, it can be wrong in the context of a single game (although I'd assume that more often than not it still reflects accurately who had the better quantity of chances * quality of chances) but that's not what I meant.

The discussion about xG is usually between two camps: One who see football as a simple game (goals count, everything else doesn't matter) and those who see it as a complicated game. IMO it is the latter. Football's low scoring nature and the fact that goals happen so rarely means that results are prone to a lot of randomness. There are probably very few sports in which the chances of the better team losing are as high as in football. Those who really understand the sport understand this nature and get that the best you can do is maximizing your chances of winning, you can't force it. So when you review yourself and see what you can do better, it is important to keep that in mind and not think result oriented - as in a shot that doesn't go in was a bad decision/execution and one that goes in was a good one. Or a successful dribbling that leads to no goal was pointless.

So to speak, xG is a proxy war between these two understandings. And I'm sure Sumptner would agree with me that it's not a simple but a complicated sport with lots of luck involved - and if he doesn't, he doesn't understand the sport either

Football is neither complicated, nor simple, it's somewhat in the middle I'd say.

It's also a game of luck, every game is roughly 50/50 in terms of luck Vs skill.

The managers job is actually to reduce the percentage of luck in the game via having the best players/game plan/tactics.

The simple fact against the complicated stats in the champions league final was that Real Madrid took their chance, and should of had a other goal to the good which was wrongfully disallowed (there's the luck), Liverpool didn't.

If anything the luck aspect went against Real Madrid, the disallowed goal, the missed one on one from Ceballos, there's not much luck in having a good GK who makes good saves, as that's the job of the manager (getting the best players to reduce the luck Vs skill aspect).

Expected goals should not be looked at in isolation of a game, it doesn't offer much that way, it's designed for use over the course of a season or a prolonged period.

 

[Morty_]

I don't think this game is a good example, as Salah and Mane are top attackers, but in general, does xG take into account who is shooting at the goal?

 

[giorno]

Their finishing was mostly pretty poor, Courtois made some comfortable saves and a couple of good one's, something you would expect from a Real Madrid goalkeeper. Madrid could and should have been at least 2 goals to the good come the final whistle. The xG is total nonsense.

Liverpool shot quite well actually. In fact, if they didn't the game wouldn't have looked quite so one-sided as most of their chances weren't really great chances, only the Salah one at the end could really be considered a big chance, rest came down to good shots

 

[giorno]

I don't think this game is a good example, as Salah and Mane are top attackers, but in general, does xG take into account who is shooting at the goal?

Nope. It's based on averages. It means Liverpool put up quite a lot of shots based on which you generally expect to score 2 goals. They actually shot much better than that and based on the quality of the shots would have "normally" scored 3 or more

It was an all timer by Courtois

And for the record, i think this game is actually a really good example of a game that is more or less accurately captured by xG - not perfectly obviously - despite the fact that xG isn't all that accurate a metric to judge a single game(though still good!)

 

[Mercurial]

Two years in a row UCL final has given me immense joy. Been in such happy mood just before the summer both years seeing our rivals bite the dust. Both years the sheer ammount of butthurt afterward from City & Liverpool has just made it sweeter.

 

[GatoLoco]

Toni Kroos's take on this topic:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[marktan]

Tbf they did get battered by Chelsea in particular, and got really lucky with the goals they scored in that game. It's not often that a team is outplayed in every single knock out game they play in the CL and still win - it reminds me a lot of Chelsea's win in 2012.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Pool had an open bus parade?

 

[adexkola]

Of course it makes sense! Everybody who follows football knows that there only one stat that matters.The goals scored stat!

And people wonder why Michael Owen has a job, when a lot of football discourse boils down to tripe like this

 

[crossy1686]

Toni Kroos's take on this topic:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

@Zehner needs to sit this guy down and explain to him how he doesn't understand the game.

 

[GatoLoco]

Tbf they did get battered by Chelsea in particular, and got really lucky with the goals they scored in that game. It's not often that a team is outplayed in every single knock out game they play in the CL and still win - it reminds me a lot of Chelsea's win in 2012.

It did not happen vs PSG at the Bernabeu though. Madrid had the most chances there, plus won the game 3-1. Hard to see PSG having the upper hand there. https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/2033905--real-madrid-vs-paris/statistics/

Real Madrid - City at the Bernabeu was even: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/2034663--real madrid-vs-man. city/statistics/ and again, the game was won 3-1.