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

[cyberman]

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

Why though? Madrid had a very contentious goal ruled offside and missed about 3 glorious chances to set a teammate up for definite goals on the break, those if he just got an easy pass away situations aren't reflected in XG.
Goals do matter, its the difference in Liverpool playing Diaz and Salah up top who haven't exactly been setting the world alight goal scoring wise since January and bringing on a striker who hasn't scored in what? 20 odd games?
XG doesn't go into those, it just says these out of form goal scorers missed chances they've been routinely missing for a long time now, aren't they somehow unlucky when two deadly attackers on the other side link up and score?

 

[adexkola]

Why though? Madrid had a very contentious goal ruled offside and missed about 3 glorious chances to set a teammate up for definite goals on the break, those if he just got an easy pass away situations aren't reflected in XG.
Goals do matter, its the difference in Liverpool playing Diaz and Salah up top who haven't exactly been setting the world alight goal scoring wise since January and bringing on a striker who hasn't scored in what? 20 odd games?
XG doesn't go into those, it just says these out of form goal scorers missed chances they've been routinely missing for a long time now, aren't they somehow unlucky when two deadly attackers on the other side link up and score?

I'm not arguing that Madrid did not deserve the win, they absolutely did

But to argue that football is as simple as goals scored is Michael Owen level of thought

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

Petition time? Courtios shouldn’t be allowed play as well as he did.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Get the feck over it, Liverpool. Pathetic. It doesn't "mean more" to your fans.

You lost a game fair and square.

You won two out of three finals without scoring a single fecking goal and that's the only extraordinary thing here.

If I were a Liverpool fan, I would count myself very fecking lucky to have picked up two trophies from three games where my team scored zero goals.

All this tiresome bullshit about it "meaning more" is just an ugly belief in your own exceptionalism, and something wicked comes that way.

 

[giorno]

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.

Actually we outplayed both PSG and City at home and Chelsea away. We just got more outplayed in the other leg

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If it's obvious that a goal has been wrongly disallowed, surely the xG model should take that into account?

I mean, why would it not take it into account?

 

[Zehner]

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.

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

If you actually read my posts then you'd know I'm not referring to the final in particular. I haven't seen the full game so I have no opinion on that.

But the superficiality with which stats like xG are dismissed is very annoying. And you know fully well that 99% of people jn this thread would be arguing the opposite if it hadn't been Liverpool but United losing a final with these stats.

I just find it ridiculous and chilidish when people have opinions simply because of their allegiances. You're a grown up, you shouldn't be that biased just because you don't like a fecking football club.

 

[adexkola]

I think the problem with xG is that there are so many nuances that it cant possibly correlate, so it cant ever be a "perfect" stat. If you take THAT torres goal, for example, if Valdes sweeps the ball from him, then by xG standards its not a chance at all, but we'd all be in agreement its a massive chance. At the same time, if you account for Valdes' position when he scores, it should truly be what.. .99? .98 xg? I get thats just one example tht rarely happens, but still those kind of things dont lend itself to shouting about a single match's xG stats.

No stat is perfect. Any modeler would tell you that. This is not an original thought, that xG isn't perfect. Yes, we know that. But it is a gradual improvement on the actual scoreline of a match in helping us understand the relationship between a team's performance and the final scoreline.

 

[GatoLoco]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[giorno]

START THE PETITIONS!

 

[crossy1686]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

But it's not, and you didn't.

 

[crossy1686]

If you actually read my posts then you'd know I'm not referring to the final in particular. I haven't seen the full game so I have no opinion on that.

But the superficiality with which stats like xG are dismissed is very annoying. And you know fully well that 99% of people jn this thread would be arguing the opposite if it hadn't been Liverpool but United losing a final with these stats.

I just find it ridiculous and chilidish when people have opinions simply because of their allegiances. You're a grown up, you shouldn't be that biased just because you don't like a fecking football club.

I think the consensus on this forum would have been that we should have finished our chances and Liverpool sucker punched us, and probably could have had a couple. This has nothing to do with United or Liverpool, it's to do with trying to say Liverpool deserved to win because they had better xG, that argument just doesn't hold up in any way.

 

[The Brown Bull]

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

Explain to me how it is “tripe” to remind people that the stat that matters is goals scored?
I am all ears.

 

[The Brown Bull]

I'm optimistic I can show you correlation.

Go ahead.

 

[allen7]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[jem]

If you actually read my posts then you'd know I'm not referring to the final in particular. I haven't seen the full game so I have no opinion on that.

But the superficiality with which stats like xG are dismissed is very annoying. And you know fully well that 99% of people jn this thread would be arguing the opposite if it hadn't been Liverpool but United losing a final with these stats.

I just find it ridiculous and chilidish when people have opinions simply because of their allegiances. You're a grown up, you shouldn't be that biased just because you don't like a fecking football club.

I think you’re wrong there - I think most United are very critical and are quick to accuse fellow fans of playing the RAWK card when they complain of injustice.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If my balls had an aunty they'd be a bike

 

[RedAl22]

And if it was a round of golf you'd be well over par!

Anyway, Vini Jr landed a knockout punch so points don't matter.

 

[roonster09]

Somehow people think if they talk about xG, they are smart, or understand football better .

xG is awesome model, probably the best but it's not for individual games and for sure not for games like finals.

 

[Real Name]

Simon Jordan saying Liverpool is the best team on planet and undeniably better than Madrid.

 

[Moby]

Call me old fashioned but every victory should be memorable and devastating for the losers

Calm down roy keane

 

[Moby]

If it's obvious that a goal has been wrongly disallowed, surely the xG model should take that into account?

I mean, why would it not take it into account?

Because as per the record and the ref it wasn't wrongly disallowed and they stood by that call, which means that chance doesn't contribute to an expected goals metric as it wasn't a valid goalscoring chance.

In an extreme example, if a player is clearly offside but gets through on goal and takes a shot that wouldn't go into any records as a high xG opportunity.

It's quite tricky to get a 'wrongly disallowed' chance or goal being incorporated into the record, as it becomes completely subjective. The match record shows that as illegal play and that's what any model will need to go by. That's just another limitation of the model.

 

[TheLord]

I am planning to cancel my subscription once this one runs out. Who in the right senses pays for an outlet that churns out such dross?

 

[crossy1686]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The Athletic have made the article free to read now so you can read it if you don't have a subscription. It's bad... and the comments are great

 

[RoyH1]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

No dear Steve Nicol, you would have been leading the match on points until getting knocked out. It also works in boxing you see.

At this rate, in a few years Xg and time of possession fetishists might start appealing for goals to disappear as the only metric allowed to decide a victory

 

[SilentWitness]

xG isn't a tool that you can just display without context but it does help debunk hot takes. For example to say Liverpool were very poor as some have in this thread is nonsense. You could say they were v. poor at finishing but they clearly created loads of chances and could have won the game just as much as Real did.

xG Liverpool 1.98- 0.85 Real Madrid shots map (Actual score LFC 0-1 RMA)


0-1 Vinicius goal vs Liverpool xG 0.70


Some other notable LFC chances v Real Madrid and Courtois saves


16th minute Salah chance v Real Madrid (good Courtois save)
21st minute Mane chance v Real Madrid (Courtois save, pushed onto post)
64th minute Salah chance v Real Madrid (long range, but again Courtois parries away)
69th minute Salah chance vs Real Madrid (Courtois save from close range at post)
80th minute Jota chance v Real Madrid (promising position, but not the best of contact, saved by Courtois)
82nd minute Salah chance v Real Madrid (great Courtois save)

 

[MUW4Eva]

xG isn't a tool that you can just display without context but it does help debunk hot takes. For example to say Liverpool were very poor as some have in this thread is nonsense. You could say they were v. poor at finishing but they clearly created loads of chances and could have won the game just as much as Real did.

It isn't nonsense to say that Liverpool were very poor, they were, they created naff all, once again failed to score in a final, and yet we are supposed to belive that they dud well??

The scoreboard would suggest otherwise, that us for sure.
Real Madrid scored two good goals, Liverpool couldn't even manage a single one, so how anyone can say that Liverpool were not poor on the night is very odd....

Real Madrid were dominant with the ball, and also crucially without it.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Because as per the record and the ref it wasn't wrongly disallowed and they stood by that call, which means that chance doesn't contribute to an expected goals metric as it wasn't a valid goalscoring chance.

In an extreme example, if a player is clearly offside but gets through on goal and takes a shot that wouldn't go into any records as a high xG opportunity.

It's quite tricky to get a 'wrongly disallowed' chance or goal being incorporated into the record, as it becomes completely subjective. The match record shows that as illegal play and that's what any model will need to go by. That's just another limitation of the model.

That's logical enough, I suppose.

Still - a measure of subjectivity could actually be an improvement in some cases. I mean, what we're talking about here are instances where either the ref or VAR was clearly wrong in the sense that all objective/neutral observers would agree that they were.

I see how it could be a slippery slope, of course - but it's still a pretty big flaw. These things happen fairly regularly, after all.

 

[SilentWitness]

It isn't nonsense to say that Liverpool were very poor, they were, they created naff all, once again failed to score in a final, and yet we are supposed to belive that they dud well??

The scoreboard would suggest otherwise, that us for sure.
Real Madrid scored two good goals, Liverpool couldn't even manage a single one, so how anyone can say that Liverpool were not poor on the night is very odd....

Real Madrid were dominant with the ball, and also crucially without it.

How can a keeper make 9 saves if a team creates naff all.

 

[Idxomer]

How can a keeper make 9 saves if a team creates naff all.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Don't see any chances here.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

De Gea used to play like courtois every 3 weeks or so.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

How can a keeper make 9 saves if a team creates naff all.

Not putting this forward of an explanation of the game, but this is easily possible. Happens often in games where one team sits deep and the other are desperate, because they can shoot from distance.

In the actual game Liverpool had an xg of 1.98 which shows that the 20 shots they had weren't amazing chances. They had a couple where the ball was rolled across the box. All the saves says is they got these shots on target

 

[MUW4Eva]

How can a keeper make 9 saves if a team creates naff all.

Sorry should have said, naff all good chances, happy now.

Everything Liverpool created was easy for Courtois, he wasn't called upon to do anything out of the ordinary, nothing that he wouldn't have already faced in training already.
He did what he was there to do, unlike any Liverpool player, who didn't do what they were there to do.
Liverpool's defenders didn't do what they were there to do, which was to keep a clean sheet, the two goals that they conceded proves that.

The Liverpool attackers didn't do what they were there to do, which was to score, but please do carry on about how really good Liverpool played, despite their players falling to do their respective jobs all match long.

Liverpool were very poor on the night, there is just no other way of getting around that.

 

[crossy1686]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Don't see any chances here.

I’d say only 2 to 3 of those were clear cut chances that Liverpool should have probably scored. The rest were deflections or speculative shots that the keeper dealt with comfortably, or did a camera save.

 

[sullydnl]

Looking at the stats from the game, there's no real question that you'd expect the side with Liverpool's stats to win more often than not. And if those stats repeated themselves over multiple games, you would increasing confidently predict the team with Liverpool's stats will do better than the side with Madrid's over the longer run. Which is a valuable thing for underlying stats to tell you, especially as it will often fly in the face of short-term results.

The issue is when you start using those stats to suggest the team with Madrid's stats didn't "deserve" to win the game. Because part of the point of football (and high variance knock-out football in particular) is that the team with Madrid's stats can win the game. If we wanted to know who would win more often than not, we'd play a league format. This is specifically about who wins on this one day.

We could rightly say that depending on your goalkeeper to perform as Courtois did to win games is unsustainable. But if your goalkeeper manages to overperform in this one-off game then that overperformance isn't then somehow an undeserving way to win. He just happened to earn the win by putting in that individual overperformance on the day that counts, as opposed to earning the win in a more repeatable way. The win was still earned though and no less "deserved" for the way it was done or because it ran against those underlying statistics.

 

[SilentWitness]

Sorry should have said, naff all good chances, happy now.

Everything Liverpool created was easy for Courtois, he wasn't called upon to do anything out of the ordinary, nothing that he wouldn't have already faced in training already.
He did what he was there to do, unlike any Liverpool player, who didn't do what they were there to do.
Liverpool's defenders didn't do what they were there to do, which was to keep a clean sheet, the two goals that they conceded proves that.

The Liverpool attackers didn't do what they were there to do, which was to score, but please do carry on about how really good Liverpool played, despite their players falling to do their respective jobs all match long.

Liverpool were very poor on the night, there is just no other way of getting around that.

I haven't said Liverpool played really good. I've said that they didn't play poorly, their finishing was.

 

[MUW4Eva]

Looking at the stats from the game, there's no real question that you'd expect the side with Liverpool's stats to win more often than not. And if those stats repeated themselves over multiple games, you would increasing confidently predict the team with Liverpool's stats will do better than the side with Madrid's over the longer run. Which is a valuable thing for underlying stats to tell you, especially as it will often fly in the face of short-term results.

The issue is when you start using those stats to suggest the team with Madrid's stats didn't "deserve" to win the game. Because part of the point of football (and high variance knock-out football in particular) is that the team with Madrid's stats can win the game. If we wanted to know who would win more often than not, we'd play a league format. This is specifically about who wins on this one day.

We could rightly say that depending on your goalkeeper to perform as Courtois did to win games is unsustainable. But if your goalkeeper manages to overperform in this one-off game then that overperformance isn't then somehow an undeserving way to win. He just happened to earn the win by putting in that individual overperformance on the day that counts, as opposed to earning the win in a more repeatable way. The win was still earned though and no less "deserved" for the way it was done or because it ran against those underlying statistics.

I don't understand the part in bold....why is it apparently "unsustainable" to expect a top class goalkeeper to perform well consistently??

Why is there this need to put down or to think less of goalkeepers, as if them playing well is some sort of fluke in a game?

If a top class striker plays well in a game, do we put that down, or say that is "unsustainable"??

What exactly is the difference??

 

[MattyLT]

I hear journalists are now petitioning parliament to make May 28th an annual day of mourning, to commemorate Liverpool's CL final loss.

 

[SilentWitness]

Not putting this forward of an explanation of the game, but this is easily possible. Happens often in games where one team sits deep and the other are desperate, because they can shoot from distance.

In the actual game Liverpool had an xg of 1.98 which shows that the 20 shots they had weren't amazing chances. They had a couple where the ball was rolled across the box. All the saves says is they got these shots on target

I agree with the example you use (Shots from distance) but in the final that clearly wasn't the case as the video shows.

 

[MUW4Eva]

I haven't said Liverpool played really good. I've said that they didn't play poorly, their finishing was.

Which area of the team didn't play poorly?

Their defence was poor, they are there to keep a clean sheet, which they failed to do letting in two goals.

Their attacking players failed to play well, as they didn't score a single goal.

But please do carry on maintaining that they were not very poor when they were.
Not one area of their side did their job, they all failed on the night.
So if you have a team that is a failure, how can that be anything other than a very poor performance.

Real Madrid played well all over the pitch.

Their defence kept a clean sheet pretty easily, & their attackers scored two goals, so it is pretty clear which side played well, did their respective jobs on the night, and which side didn't.