Ok, now he is starting his excuses. Didn't ETH also come up with xG excuses ?
xG And Analytics Under Amorim
- Thread starter bosnian_red
- Start date
The majority of people who easily dismiss the underlying metrics often think about it in those terms. It's not there to replace the actual table, but to accompany it. You can not interpret the stats correctly without watching the actual games. There's a wide variety of reasons why a team overperforms or underperforms their metrics. There's never a one-size-fits-all explanation. The couple of times Liverpool went toe-to-toe with City for the title, the metrics showed that Pep's side was the dominant force, with Liverpool pushing their own strengths to their limits. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have deserved to win the title, if Kompany's shot had gone wide against Leicester in 2019 or if Gundogan hadn't had not taken them by the hand and lead them to victory against your team in 2022. It does shed a light, though, on why it was Liverpool who used to have the "off season" to regroup more often than not (except for 2020) over the space of six seasons.
For example, you have been one of the league's "overachievers" under Emery. It doesn't mean you're just lucky. You take risks with your defensive line and the directness of your attacks, and it pays off more often than not. I'd venture to say that having a core PL experienced players between the ages of 25–32 helps a lot when it comes to getting over the line. Also, some pretty neat partnerships all over the pitch.
City are an interesting case this season because the drop-off in their performances is so significant, statistically wise, that it urges you to look beyond Rodri. There's no doubt that he's pivotal for them, but is there something else going on too? Then, you check their underlying stats in previous seasons, and you see that their level of dominance (which, at one point, was absolute) has been slowly decreasing since the acquisition of Haaland. Despite the buckets of goals and his attacking presence, they don't seem to be a better (Pep) team with him. It's these thing i find interesting, personally.
I doubt it, because xG was massively not in Ten Hag's favour.
Noticed this. Could be something, could be nothing.
Average shot distance vs. goals per shot on target, doesn't include penalties. Something that kind of caught my eye when looking at FBref.
We have the lowest goals per shot on target rate (G/SoT), and on average have been shooting from further out than most teams. Our shots on target percentage (SoT) is bad too.
Some anomalies among the longer distance shooters though, Forest and Wolves scoring well when they hit the target.
At the top end though, the 6 or 7 teams who shoot from closest to goal on average all have good rates when they hit the target so I'm guessing that's where you want be, ideally? I guess you could make it up with pure volume of shots, but it does look like what you wanting to be aiming for.
I grabbed the data from the big 5 European leagues going back as far as I could, and there is some overall corellation. I'm not clever enough to understand if this means it's much of a thing or not.
Average shot distance vs. goals per shot on target, doesn't include penalties. Something that kind of caught my eye when looking at FBref.
We have the lowest goals per shot on target rate (G/SoT), and on average have been shooting from further out than most teams. Our shots on target percentage (SoT) is bad too.
Some anomalies among the longer distance shooters though, Forest and Wolves scoring well when they hit the target.
At the top end though, the 6 or 7 teams who shoot from closest to goal on average all have good rates when they hit the target so I'm guessing that's where you want be, ideally? I guess you could make it up with pure volume of shots, but it does look like what you wanting to be aiming for.
I grabbed the data from the big 5 European leagues going back as far as I could, and there is some overall corellation. I'm not clever enough to understand if this means it's much of a thing or not.
Last edited:
Noticed this. Could be something, could be nothing.
Average shot distance vs. goals per shot on target, doesn't include penalties. Something that kind of caught my eye when looking at FBref.
We have the lowest goals per shot on target rate, and on average have been shooting from further out than most teams. Our shots on traget percentage (SoT) is bad too.
Some anomalies among the longer distance shooters though, Forest and Wolves scoring well when they hit the target.
At the top end though, the 6 teams who shoot from closest to goal on average all have good rates when they hit the target so I'm guessing that's where you want be, ideally?
I grabbed the data from the big 5 European leagues going back as far as I could, and there is some overall corellation. I'm not clever enough to understand if this means it's much of a thing or not.
This is a good shout. You can accumulate xG via long shooting but the result tends to be very high variance. If the variance does not go in your favor then you underperform your xG and result in the situation you're in. When posed with the choice of one shot that's 0.8xG and 4 shots that are 0.2xG each, most should pick the former over the latter.
To me it's indicative of general chance creation problems - players snatching at chances or lacking composure to play the final pass (e.g., all the times Garnacho opts to shoot instead of setting up a better opportunity) or just general inability to consistently create chances.
I notice the opposition players executing a skill to generate half a yard and cross the ball. This is what led to a Chelsea goal yesterday. United players who sometimes have acres of space don't seem desperate to cross the ball. It could be that there aren't enough players in the box or something else going on in the thinking.
Noticed this. Could be something, could be nothing.
Average shot distance vs. goals per shot on target, doesn't include penalties. Something that kind of caught my eye when looking at FBref.
We have the lowest goals per shot on target rate (G/SoT), and on average have been shooting from further out than most teams. Our shots on target percentage (SoT) is bad too.
Some anomalies among the longer distance shooters though, Forest and Wolves scoring well when they hit the target.
At the top end though, the 6 or 7 teams who shoot from closest to goal on average all have good rates when they hit the target so I'm guessing that's where you want be, ideally? I guess you could make it up with pure volume of shots, but it does look like what you wanting to be aiming for.
I grabbed the data from the big 5 European leagues going back as far as I could, and there is some overall corellation. I'm not clever enough to understand if this means it's much of a thing or not.
It's obvious to the eye test as well.
Chelsea scored from a piece of play that had their full back hemming our #10 in 25 yards from his goal. We rarely sustain pressure on teams similarly where we are pushing them deep.
We've had the most touches in the league in our own third of the field but only the 10th most in opposition's third. It's a huge issue that we seemingly can't progress the ball or create chances until we go behind and the opposition stop pinning us in so aggressively.
These are not Amorim specific, it's our league season as a whole but still make for some really disapoointing reading and he must have played a part in it.
Posted them up in the general Amorim thread when discussing a particular point, thought I'd drop them here too.
-9.71 xGD in the goal diff 0 game state so we very much have the worst of it at 0-0, 1-1 etc.
Fairly even xGD when trailing so we dig in ok in those circumstances but can't turn it around into positive xGD.
Slightly positve xGD when ahead when we're feeling confident and in the lead. Wouldn't go as far as to say flat track bully because it's still not spectacular.
During each 15 minute period of a game other than minutes 16-30 our opponent's xG per shot is higher than ours, so we're giving up bigger chances on average than we create.
We've come on quite strong late in games especially those last 15 minutes when outshot our opponents 144-74 with a positive xGD of 4.90. Even then our opposition has a better quality of chance when they do have a shot, 0.12 xG vs 0.16 xG and the difference is ven bigger in the 61-75 period, 0.12 v 0.19. That potentially lends into the theory that teams are happy to let us have the ball late on, restricting us to smaller chances than they can create against us on the break. Part of it may be us driving them back too.
From minutes 31-75 we're a very bad team. -2.46, -4.97 and -3.71 xGD in the three respective 15 minute periods and just after half time we've been truly terrible.
Adding up our minutes with a goal difference of +1 or more, we've led for only 441 minutes all season. Only Southampton have led for less time during the season according to this other graphic.
Posted them up in the general Amorim thread when discussing a particular point, thought I'd drop them here too.
-9.71 xGD in the goal diff 0 game state so we very much have the worst of it at 0-0, 1-1 etc.
Fairly even xGD when trailing so we dig in ok in those circumstances but can't turn it around into positive xGD.
Slightly positve xGD when ahead when we're feeling confident and in the lead. Wouldn't go as far as to say flat track bully because it's still not spectacular.
During each 15 minute period of a game other than minutes 16-30 our opponent's xG per shot is higher than ours, so we're giving up bigger chances on average than we create.
We've come on quite strong late in games especially those last 15 minutes when outshot our opponents 144-74 with a positive xGD of 4.90. Even then our opposition has a better quality of chance when they do have a shot, 0.12 xG vs 0.16 xG and the difference is ven bigger in the 61-75 period, 0.12 v 0.19. That potentially lends into the theory that teams are happy to let us have the ball late on, restricting us to smaller chances than they can create against us on the break. Part of it may be us driving them back too.
From minutes 31-75 we're a very bad team. -2.46, -4.97 and -3.71 xGD in the three respective 15 minute periods and just after half time we've been truly terrible.
Adding up our minutes with a goal difference of +1 or more, we've led for only 441 minutes all season. Only Southampton have led for less time during the season according to this other graphic.
Last edited:
6 yard box shenanigans!
Season as a whole again, not just under Amorim.
Teams do tend to target the "second six yard box" when trying to create chances, the area between the 6 yard box and penalty spot more than the 6 yard box itself. Pep loves that shit but I don't know where to get stats for that. Would think this is a thing of significance too.
From Understat, will do the defensive side of it if I can be bothered. Early indications are that it looks bad for us as well.
Last column is interesting in general, only Leicester overachieving. Is the xG of chances overestimated from close range? If so it should apply equally to all teams. xG does include blocked chances so maybe that's it? Teams trying to score from close in when the path to goal is blocked by a defender?
Season as a whole again, not just under Amorim.
Teams do tend to target the "second six yard box" when trying to create chances, the area between the 6 yard box and penalty spot more than the 6 yard box itself. Pep loves that shit but I don't know where to get stats for that. Would think this is a thing of significance too.
From Understat, will do the defensive side of it if I can be bothered. Early indications are that it looks bad for us as well.
Last column is interesting in general, only Leicester overachieving. Is the xG of chances overestimated from close range? If so it should apply equally to all teams. xG does include blocked chances so maybe that's it? Teams trying to score from close in when the path to goal is blocked by a defender?
6 yard box defending.
Same story with the last column as the previous table, either xG is overestimated from close range or it's all those blocks with defenders throwing bodies in the way near the goal plus some good goalkeeper saves. Everyone keeping out more than they "should" from that area of the pitch apart from United.
We're really bad in both 6 yard boxes. Fewest goals scored, most goals allowed. The chances we create there are relatively weak compared to everyone else (shooting from tight angles within the 6 yard box?) the chances we give up are bigger ones than everyone but Ipswich (allowing shots from right in front of goal?)
Same story with the last column as the previous table, either xG is overestimated from close range or it's all those blocks with defenders throwing bodies in the way near the goal plus some good goalkeeper saves. Everyone keeping out more than they "should" from that area of the pitch apart from United.
We're really bad in both 6 yard boxes. Fewest goals scored, most goals allowed. The chances we create there are relatively weak compared to everyone else (shooting from tight angles within the 6 yard box?) the chances we give up are bigger ones than everyone but Ipswich (allowing shots from right in front of goal?)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 20,294
- Supports
️
These are not Amorim specific, it's our league season as a whole but still make for some really disapoointing reading and he must have played a part in it.
Posted them up in the general Amorim thread when discussing a particular point, thought I'd drop them here too.
-9.71 xGD in the goal diff 0 game state so we very much have the worst of it at 0-0, 1-1 etc.
Fairly even xGD when trailing so we dig in ok in those circumstances but can't turn it around into positive xGD.
Slightly positve xGD when ahead when we're feeling confident and in the lead. Wouldn't go as far as to say flat track bully because it's still not spectacular.
During each 15 minute period of a game other than minutes 16-30 our opponent's xG per shot is higher than ours, so we're giving up bigger chances on average than we create.
We've come on quite strong late in games especially those last 15 minutes when outshot our opponents 144-74 with a positive xGD of 4.90. Even then our opposition has a better quality of chance when they do have a shot, 0.12 xG vs 0.16 xG and the difference is ven bigger in the 61-75 period, 0.12 v 0.19. That potentially lends into the theory that teams are happy to let us have the ball late on, restricting us to smaller chances than they can create against us on the break. Part of it may be us driving them back too.
From minutes 31-75 we're a very bad team. -2.46, -4.97 and -3.71 xGD in the three respective 15 minute periods and just after half time we've been truly terrible.
Adding up our minutes with a goal difference of +1 or more, we've led for only 441 minutes all season. Only Southampton have led for less time during the season according to this other graphic.
6 yard box shenanigans!
Season as a whole again, not just under Amorim.
Teams do tend to target the "second six yard box" when trying to create chances, the area between the 6 yard box and penalty spot more than the 6 yard box itself. Pep loves that shit but I don't know where to get stats for that. Would think this is a thing of significance too.
From Understat, will do the defensive side of it if I can be bothered. Early indications are that it looks bad for us as well.
Last column is interesting in general, only Leicester overachieving. Is the xG of chances overestimated from close range? If so it should apply equally to all teams. xG does include blocked chances so maybe that's it? Teams trying to score from close in when the path to goal is blocked by a defender?
3 excellent posts in a row.6 yard box defending.
Same story with the last column as the previous table, either xG is overestimated from close range or it's all those blocks with defenders throwing bodies in the way near the goal plus some good goalkeeper saves. Everyone keeping out more than they "should" from that area of the pitch apart from United.
We're really bad in both 6 yard boxes. Fewest goals scored, most goals allowed. The chances we create there are relatively weak compared to everyone else (shooting from tight angles within the 6 yard box?) the chances we give up are bigger ones than everyone but Ipswich (allowing shots from right in front of goal?)
The facts are clear as day to see. We do not attack effectively and we do not defend effectively (relative to other sides in the PL) we are incapable of creating and maintaining leads in matches due to our inability to do the above.
It’s absolutely damning and makes it very difficult to look at Amorim and the squad as anything other than abject failures this season.
Of course there is a chance we suddenly go from being amongst the worst to a respectable level, but that will require pace and power in attack, a solid base to operate from in midfield with progression and attacking players capable of picking out good options in attacking scenarios.
I said in another thread the emotion is despondent. I stand by it.
Last game of the season vs Aston Villa and they couldn’t get hit a barn door. It’s the same reason why Ten Hag was sacked. When we have chances, most of our players (including Bruno, especially Bruno) do not shoot on target.
Practice more shooting in training and get more effective players. Cunha and Mbuemo are a great start.
Practice more shooting in training and get more effective players. Cunha and Mbuemo are a great start.