I’d be interested to see the set piece statistics. We’ve obviously been better, if we got any worse we’d be relegated. But from what I’ve seen we’ve gone from probably being the least threatening team in the league from set pieces to one of the most threatening. We create so much from set pieces and it’s great but I’d like to see our xg broken down a bit.Last season:
This season:
After 15 games, there no real way of twisting the basic underlying data such that we're not fundamentally a lot better in terms of performances than we were last year.
Doesn't necessarily mean we'll get the results we want across the rest of the season, but still. If people wanted to see it improve, its improved.
xG And Analytics Under Amorim
- Thread starter bosnian_red
- Start date
-
In the latest edition of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood), Imran (@Annihilate Now!) & Jamie (@Vault Dweller) celebrate a fantastic victory as Manchester United won 2-0 in the Derby. They celebrate the changes Carrick has made, discuss our new coaching team and find time to play a Stupid Game. Enjoy!
Not quite what you asked for, but open play xG difference versus set-piece xG difference:
Understat do a breakdown of chances into Open play, from corner, set piece, penalty and direct free kick, though only for individual teams. Their xG model seems to be slightly higher than the total number of PL goals scored this season, while Fbref's model is lower.
Anyway, United have had 39 shots from corner, 6 goals, xG 4.02. Opponents 35 shots, 5 goals, xGA 4.51
Set piece: United 16 shots, 3 goals, xG 2.51. Opponents 10 shots, 0 goals, xGA 1.12
Direct free kick: United 3 shots, xG 0.33. Opponents 4 shots, 1 goal, xGA 0.25
Penalty: United 4 scored 2, xG 3.04. Opponents 1 scored 1. xGA 0.76
Chelsea have scored 7 from corners (xG 5.30), 1 set piece goal, 1 direct free kick and 1 penalty. They have conceded 3 goals from corners, 0 from other set pieces.
Arsenal have scored 8 from corners (xG 5.87), 2 set piece goals (xG 1.56) and 2/2 penalties. They have conceded 2 from corners, 1 set piece goal and 1 direct free kick.
Newcastle 5 goals from corners (xG 4.72). 1 set piece goal and 3/3 penalties. Conceded 4 goals from corners (xGA 1.81) and 2/2 penalties.
Spurs 7 goals from corners (xG 3.18). 0 other set piece goals. Conceded 2 goals from corners and 1/1 penalties.
Liverpool 0 goals from corners (xG 2.80). 1 direct free kick and 1/1 penalties. Conceded 5 goals from corners (xGA 2.32), 2 set piece goals and 2/3 penalties.
Man City 5 goals from corners (xG 4.39). 0 other set piece goals. Conceded 5 goals from corners (xGA 3.83), 1 set piece and 1/2 penalties.
Fulham 5 goals from corners (xG 3.18). Conceded 6 goals from corners (xGA 5.51) and 2/3 penalties.
Brentford 0 goals from corners, 5/7 penalties.
Villa 5 goals from corners (xG 2.84) + 2 direct free kicks. Conceded 4 goals from corners (xGA 4.77), 1 set piece and 1/2 penalties.
Brighton 5 goals from corners (xG 4.56), 1 direct free kick and 2/3 penalties. Conceded 2 from corners, 1 set piece and 2/3 penalties
The stats show so much improvement that I wonder if we just learn to hang on to certain results, the conversations around the manager at the moment would look quite bad.
However when it’s bad, it really falls off a cliff - which is my concern. Grimsby and Everton will be those games which will forever remain etched in the memory.
The next 10 games will tell us if that’s because it was the beginning of the end for Amorim, or it was a Middlesbrough 4-1, which galvanised the club
However when it’s bad, it really falls off a cliff - which is my concern. Grimsby and Everton will be those games which will forever remain etched in the memory.
The next 10 games will tell us if that’s because it was the beginning of the end for Amorim, or it was a Middlesbrough 4-1, which galvanised the club
Created the most xG of any team in the league and scored the joint second most goals now. If we could defend, we'd be dangerous.
A game later and this sentiment rings even louder.
Home: xG 16.8 xGA 7.6
Away: xG 13.4 xGA 14.1
You've "won" the xG in every single home match, and "lost" in all but 2 away matches(Brentford and Wolves)
positive xGD of +8.4, which comes almost entirely off 3 matches: Burnely, Wolves and Bournemouth
The away numbers in general are *massively* buoyed by the Wolves match btw - you genuinely have been very bad away except for that one amazing performance
At OT however, you're genuinely great
Away: xG 13.4 xGA 14.1
You've "won" the xG in every single home match, and "lost" in all but 2 away matches(Brentford and Wolves)
positive xGD of +8.4, which comes almost entirely off 3 matches: Burnely, Wolves and Bournemouth
The away numbers in general are *massively* buoyed by the Wolves match btw - you genuinely have been very bad away except for that one amazing performance
At OT however, you're genuinely great
This is an intelligent critique of how Xg is used by fans and pundits -
Thanks for sharing, it is an interesting watch even though there is nothing distinctly new in it.
For those who don't want to spend the 18 minutes:
The video makes a distinction between the stat itself and the way it is used these days. The 2nd is what the video is mostly about. It works out 4 problematic issues:
1. xG doesn't take game state into account (sometimes a team might not have the gameplan to create as many good shots on goal as possible, so a low xG number might still mean a game plan well exectuted)
2. xG is often used with too little of a sample size (selfexplanatory)
3. xG doesn't account for not only shots being chances (you can have a really good cross that is missed by a centimeter that isn't accounted for in xG)
4. xG doesn't account for who the player is that is taking the shot (it is different, when your teams works out 1,5 xG for your striker than for your CB)
What the video didn't mention though, is that those points can be mitigated to a degree with the evolution of xG i.e. different designs that take more factors into the calculation. I've already seen attempts to somehow measure crosses and I've seen gamestate tried to be incorporated as well.
The biggest point though - for all the valid criticism, I think it is already proven by studies, that there is no other stat that correlates for a result as much as xG. So while it certainly isn't perfect, there isn't anything that challenge it.
Lets see, what the next evolution of this stat is. And lets face it, even that will be used wrongly by the most likely error source of any method or concept: the user.
Thank you, didn’t want to spend time watching.
Good video, I've always been very surprised at the importance that has been placed on XG in modern football.
I think this is on par with Grimsby. Maybe worse as we didn't have Onana here.
Good video that. Cheers!
Think some of the points are arguable but that's probably just nitpicking from me.
Amorim leaves with us having the 3rd best xG difference in the league.
I sure hope the people so certain our performances will immediately improve under a new manager (looking at you @bosnian_red) are correct.
Because since fbref's stats began in 17/18, we haven't actually had a full season where we fared that well relative to the rest of the league in terms of underlying measure of performance.
Amorim leaves with us having the 3rd best xG difference in the league.
I sure hope the people so certain our performances will immediately improve under a new manager (looking at you @bosnian_red) are correct.
Because since fbref's stats began in 17/18, we haven't actually had a full season where we fared that well relative to the rest of the league in terms of underlying measure of performance.
@Glorio posted an analysis on our home vs away xG difference. Away from home we were terrible. At Old Trafford we were exceptional. But apparently the vast majority of the positive differential came from quite a small sample of games. It wasn’t evenly distributed over the season. No idea where he got that info. It was a couple of weeks before Christmas.
Burnley, Bmouth and Wolves made up about a 3rd of our xG around that time (10+ xG) so likely true. Once you look in detail xG really falls apart used cumulatively like this, it is much better used in isolation for games where you account for context (i.e. we were unlucky to lose, lucky to win) or for individual chance assessment (which coaches have teams that regularly create similar chances, which players are the best decision makers re shooting in good/bad areas).
This is the biggest one for me. A miss from 2 yards out where the player gets the slightest touch will be a miss of 0.8xG perhaps but that player completely missing it goes down as absolutely nothing despite the difference being basically nothing. If you can only get a toe on it then its not a brilliant chance. If you are suggesting that a different player would have got more than a toe on it then the same player would probably have also converted the "missed it completely by a few cm" into a goal as well.
Good teams score the goals they should score because the right players are in the right places. Bad teams don't even register those attempts because there was no one there. The number of time Dorgu should have been busting a lung to get into the box yesterday is a good example. A better player there would have got something from various balls in. As it stands they didn't even factor into the xG because no one was there.
I think, thats not good idea. Looking at an individual game, the numbers are also flawed for a lot of conclusions. When you look at cumulative data over a season, then yes, you might have different periods where the spread isn't even. But that applies to goals and even points as well. And it applies to other teams as well too. It isn't just us, that have unusually high values in some games. So looking at the total and comparing that to the totals of other teams can get you some insights. But it doesn't tell you "the truth". But that applies to every stat I guess.
It all depends on what you want to say i.e. want to use the number for. If you want to say that we our chance creation issues are a thing of the past? Probably not. If you want to say that goal scoring is a major problem for us? Probably yes. If you want to say it was the right decision to add Cunha, Mbeumo and Sesko? Definitely not.
Yeah, thats definitely a valid point to criticize. I assume, this flaw will be adressed at some point.
xG isn't everything, but as said, most of our xG differential has come from a handful of games. The rest has been pretty much level. To our credit we've done really well in games like Burnley, Sunderland and Wolves (away). Bournemouth at home as well, even if it was using a system Amorim hated. I don't think you can take a whole lot from those games (aside from our squad and his system probably had the potential to really batter some shit teams even if it never came to happen in results), and ultimately having one game where you win 4-0 on the xG but "draw" 3 games on the xG isn't as beneficial as "winning" 2-1 on the xG for 4 games in a row.
Amorim leaves with us having the 3rd best xG difference in the league.
I sure hope the people so certain our performances will immediately improve under a new manager (looking at you @bosnian_red) are correct.
Because since fbref's stats began in 17/18, we haven't actually had a full season where we fared that well relative to the rest of the league in terms of underlying measure of performance.
Also - United under Ole from when he took over until the end of the 2020/21 season were both finishing top 4 comfortably, and comfortably in the top 4 of the metrics, and making cup finals and handling a busy fixture list. Amorim has had an enormous advantage fixture wise this season, and he hasn't taken it.
There used to be a publicly available model that had something liked that baked in, think they called it "non-shot xG".
Don't know how good it was, and it's a shame it's gone now. It was part of fivethirtyeight.com a site that was owned by US political analyst Nate Silver. It had political poll predictions, economics data and sports stats galore including football xG. Teye had this non-shot xG stat to try and address that very problem. The url just goes to the politics page of ABC News now.
I felt like we were onto something but unfortunately we will never find out how it would have turned out. The numbers suggest we have been a top 5 side so far this season. I think we were a few signings away from seriously challenging.
Amorim leaves with us having the 3rd best xG difference in the league.
I sure hope the people so certain our performances will immediately improve under a new manager (looking at you @bosnian_red) are correct.
Because since fbref's stats began in 17/18, we haven't actually had a full season where we fared that well relative to the rest of the league in terms of underlying measure of performance.
Our first permanent manager post SAF to not be given a full season. And on top of that we are throwing away the rest of the season with an interim manager.
It'll be interesting to see if we go back to being passive counter-punchers or stick with this.
Yeah, eventually there will be so much accumulated data that they will be able to actually accurately gauge chances based on the positions of all players, the angle of their bodies, the speed the ball was travelling, whether it was bouncing, the weather conditions at the time, the players strengths and weaknesses etc.
There are still a lot of chances that come out as "this was 0.6xG" and you think "no it wasn't, he had about 2 foot of space to place that ball in the goal and was under huge pressure and was off balance".
People are brainwashed into thinking you have to be this, or it's the only way to play football and it's not worth doing anything else. Even if it suits your squad to play differently.It'll be interesting to see if we go back to being passive counter-punchers or stick with this.
If you can play like prime Pep Barca, then by all means, do it. Trying to do that stuff when you are not capable of it is just dumb. It's not admirable, it's dumb. Adapt you your players, adapt to the league and your opponents, and improve/adapt over time as your squad develops. If your squad suits counter attacking football, then be the best counter attacking team you can be. We didn't peak under Ole because counter attacking football has a ceiling. We peaked under Ole because our squad wasn't as good as those above us. Martial wasn't a world class striker, Fred and Mctominay were a functional pair but weren't a world class double pivot. You can replace them with Rice and Enzo Fernandez, replace Martial with a top striker like Haaland like we tried and that team would do a hell of a lot better than what they did. People just obsess over wanting to press high and dominate possession when it means feck all to actually winning games and creating chances or defending well.
Yes all stats are flawed, even points as you say but what we can do is try and arrive at the most accurate conclusion. The issue is that the media use xG as a single value that doesn't need additional info and it has become a talking point without most people understanding a) how it is calculated and b) how to use it. I posted a while back in this thread, I think, about how obvious the errors are in using it cumulatively with the City game as the example. I get most people don't really want to think about it though, they just want some kind of graph or infoset that tells them something is 'good' or 'bad' and where all the PL teams stack up.
They are breaking it down more and more, and if money keeps pumping into the sport it will get better and better over time. At the moment though, at least not paying for something more advanced, the best we can likely do is compare stuff in categories to try and add a bit of context like: xG at when team A and team B are drawing | xG at home when team A is winning/losing | xG when team A plays against 10 men etc.
Sure that was me?
xG has been proven to be the most accurate predictive model of future success
It actually does work pretty well at telling us which teams are good over time(like a season) and which teams are lucky/unkucky, in fact this was why bettors came up with it in the first place. For individual matches it's an interesting tidbit, nothing more.
It's not perfect of course, there are always exception since football is a naturally chaotic sport
It actually does work pretty well at telling us which teams are good over time(like a season) and which teams are lucky/unkucky, in fact this was why bettors came up with it in the first place. For individual matches it's an interesting tidbit, nothing more.
It's not perfect of course, there are always exception since football is a naturally chaotic sport
Yeah, the good thing is, that is all possible, you only to track more and more data. Also: I think I've already seen xG models that have incorporated pressure on the player while shooting and the position of the goal keeper. Thats a bit of the thing, there isn't "the xG" unfortunately. There are multiple models out there, each differing in what kind of factors they look at.
Brainwashed might be a little strong.
No, we didn't peak because our players weren't good enough at it. Our issue was that we only knew one song. And from a certain point onwards most people knew and prevented us from singing. The beauty of the best United team I saw 2007/08 wasn't how lethal they were on the counter attack. It was that they could do that AND they were able to keep the ball to sustain pressure. Same for Tiki Taka - you think, Barca wasn't capable of countering when the space was there? With Pedro, Alexis, Villa? The key is to be able to adapt to a situation. Nobody criticized Ole for choosing a more simple gameplan. The criticism started when it got clear that he wouldn't be able to do anything more.
If your a team that only is capable of generating danger on the counter, you absolutely do have a ceiling. You seem such a reasonable poster I don't have a clue how you can say something like that. I mean, isn't it obvious when you look across all the successful teams of the last years? Which one is only good in counter attacks? They all have multiple things up their sleeves.
I don't think many posters in here want us to turn into a possession monster, but it would be very helpful to at least look like football team on a regular basis. In contrast of looking as our players just have met 30minutes before kick off. It isn't about getting rid of one of our strength to gain a different one. It is about getting rid of severe weaknesses.
Agreed. The real killer (as with so many tools) are the users or/and the usage.
I agree with you 100%. My issue with it is doing it when you don't have a squad to do it. It doesn't/shouldn't take that long to adapt or change systems. Of course a little bit of turbulence at the start but it should adapt quickly. Doesn't take years. With Ole, I think if he didn't try to adapt in summer 2021 that we could've kept on being a good but limited team. I agree that you hit a bit of a ceiling but if you keep improving the personnel, then you keep improving bit by bit. Not enough to beat Pep, but far better than Manchester United between 2021-2025. Like if Ole kept the same system as 2019-2021, but then replaced Martial with Haaland like he wanted, it would be a huge difference. Or brought in Rice to go in the midfield pivot.
I'm not saying Ole could ever take us to the title or that it wasn't right to sack him, of course he had to go. His biggest failure though was trying to adapt and change is to something he's not capable of doing, and we'd have been better off just staying in the same direction. Less ambitious, but far more stable. Then eventually when you build a stronger squad, then try to adapt systems to be more proactive. But you're never doing that with the midfield we had at the time, nor what we have now.
I think every manager should just focus on the here and now. It's on the club directors, recruitment and planning people to build a squad to what they want. Right now, we suit a mid block, keep it tight and counter team. We have suited that for years. Play it, get the best results we can right now. If we manage to sign midfielders that can play a different way in the summer (Anderson, Baleba, Stiller, Wharton, whatever), then yes, take the next step then gradually. There is nothing wrong with expanding your style over time, as your squad changes. Because next season what is our best system might be very different to what is our best system right now, as it's always dependent on the players you have, right now. It shouldn't take years of training to get there. A few months of slight turbulence is it.
I get that, and I agree with you on the Ole point too. The hardest cap on a team isn't formation, system, ethos etc, it's recruitment. 90% of being a good team really is just having good players.
The extra 10%? Almost every team that's consistently won major leagues and titles in Europe over the last decade has been a front-foot, aggressive, high-pressing team...so I feel like it's worth the growing pains to at least try to trend that way.
Pep's City. Klopp's Geggenpressers. Tuchel's Chelsea. Barca, Bayern and Inter all top the pressing charts (and the leagues) in their respective countries. This season Arsenal are tied 1st in the league for high turnovers leading to goals. We're the team that's tied with them.
Top teams build squads that can play front-foot because that's how you beat the best consistently.
Under Amorim it at least felt like we were trying to do that. Not perfectly. Not even well a lot of the time. It was unbalanced, clearly trying to build the airplane while flying. It's obvious that no aggressive team realistically wants a starting midfield of Casemiro and Bruno. Or centre-backs like Maguire and Shaw while being reliant on teenagers.
Despite that we were creating more chances, scoring more goals, forcing high turnovers. Stats showed we were more aggressive, sprinting more and pressing higher than at any point in recent history. Sure, the Bruno-Casemiro midfield left us open, but that's transition pain. You don't become a perfect team overnight and you can't fix every position in one window.
I think we'd have looked very different with a couple of athletic midfielders, but who knows.
But you're never going to get to show that as a manager if you don't focus on the here and now and make sure you get results to get buy in from players, staff and fans. So adapt to your squad and adapt, evolve as your squad changes. Right now we aren't capable of that style, so what use is it being shit for a year? Be decent playing a bit more reactive. When, if, the squad changes, then adapt. You can't put all your hope on your system on the basis that you sign the perfect player and that player actually works out. Football doesn't work like that. Others might get your target. The player might down tools once they get their big move. Your master plan might not work. Play to the strengths of what you have, manage your squad, and worry about the future when the future comes and you get different players.
It's not transition pain if this is just the squad you have. That's just pain. He went into the season with his plan being Casemiro and Bruno in midfield. We could've bought different midfielders, but prioritized other positions. Play accordingly.
Well, that departure gave me an excuse to update this. Hopefully this is the appropriate thread for analysing Amorim against the rest of the post-SAF managers. Percentages are rounded to nearest number.
Click the image to make it big and readable (assuming you're on PC)...
Amorim finished with the following records for post-SAF managers with more than 4 games managed:
All Competitions
40% - Lowest win rate (2nd: Rangnick, 38%)
37% - Highest loss rate (2nd: Rangnick, 31%)
1.51 - Highest goals conceded per game (2nd: ten Hag, 1.29)
14% - Lowest rate of clean sheets (2nd: Rangnick, 24%)
86% - Highest rate of games with at least one goal conceded (2nd: Rangnick, 76%)
41% - Highest rate of games with at least two goals conceded (2nd: ten Hag, 37%)
Premier League
32% - Lowest win rate (2nd: Rangnick, 42%)
40% - Highest loss rate (2nd: Moyes, 32%)
-6 - Lowest goal difference (2nd: Rangnick, 0)
1.53 - Highest goals conceded per game (2nd: ten Hag, 1.32)
30% - Highest rate of games with 0 goals scored by United (2nd: Rangnick, 25%)
15% - Lowest rate of games won by at least 2 goals (2nd: ten Hag, 19%)
15% - Lowest rate of clean sheets (2nd: Rangnick, 25%)
45% - Highest rate of games lost by at least 2 goals (2nd: Moyes, 38%)
21% - Highest rate of games lost by at least 2 goals (2nd: ten Hag, 18%)
For what little it's worth, he did have some highlights at least in Europa:
Europa League (note: Amorim never played in the Champions League, Moyes and Rangnick never played in Europa League)
73% - Highest win rate (2nd: Mourinho, 67%)
9% - Lowest loss rate (2nd: Mourinho & ten Hag, 13%)
2.55 - Highest scoring rate (2nd: Solskjær, 2.1)
82% - Highest rate of games with at least 2 United goals (2nd: ten Hag, 53%)
45% - Highest rate of games with at least 3 United goals (2nd: Solskjær, 29%)
27% - Highest rate of games with at least 4 United goals (2nd: van Gaal, 25%)
9% - Highest rate of games with at least 4 goals conceded (2nd: everyone else, 0%)
Click the image to make it big and readable (assuming you're on PC)...
Amorim finished with the following records for post-SAF managers with more than 4 games managed:
All Competitions
40% - Lowest win rate (2nd: Rangnick, 38%)
37% - Highest loss rate (2nd: Rangnick, 31%)
1.51 - Highest goals conceded per game (2nd: ten Hag, 1.29)
14% - Lowest rate of clean sheets (2nd: Rangnick, 24%)
86% - Highest rate of games with at least one goal conceded (2nd: Rangnick, 76%)
41% - Highest rate of games with at least two goals conceded (2nd: ten Hag, 37%)
Premier League
32% - Lowest win rate (2nd: Rangnick, 42%)
40% - Highest loss rate (2nd: Moyes, 32%)
-6 - Lowest goal difference (2nd: Rangnick, 0)
1.53 - Highest goals conceded per game (2nd: ten Hag, 1.32)
30% - Highest rate of games with 0 goals scored by United (2nd: Rangnick, 25%)
15% - Lowest rate of games won by at least 2 goals (2nd: ten Hag, 19%)
15% - Lowest rate of clean sheets (2nd: Rangnick, 25%)
45% - Highest rate of games lost by at least 2 goals (2nd: Moyes, 38%)
21% - Highest rate of games lost by at least 2 goals (2nd: ten Hag, 18%)
For what little it's worth, he did have some highlights at least in Europa:
Europa League (note: Amorim never played in the Champions League, Moyes and Rangnick never played in Europa League)
73% - Highest win rate (2nd: Mourinho, 67%)
9% - Lowest loss rate (2nd: Mourinho & ten Hag, 13%)
2.55 - Highest scoring rate (2nd: Solskjær, 2.1)
82% - Highest rate of games with at least 2 United goals (2nd: ten Hag, 53%)
45% - Highest rate of games with at least 3 United goals (2nd: Solskjær, 29%)
27% - Highest rate of games with at least 4 United goals (2nd: van Gaal, 25%)
9% - Highest rate of games with at least 4 goals conceded (2nd: everyone else, 0%)
Amorim leaves with us having the 3rd best xG difference in the league.
I sure hope the people so certain our performances will immediately improve under a new manager (looking at you @bosnian_red) are correct.
Because since fbref's stats began in 17/18, we haven't actually had a full season where we fared that well relative to the rest of the league in terms of underlying measure of performance.
These stats aren't surprising to anyone paying attention. We've been really aggressive going forward and all the talk of 3 CB's has masked that. If we bought in a good LWB and two midfielders to stop teams running through us, I think we'd be a very scary proposition. Hopefully the new guy doesn't revert to being passive.It'll be interesting to see if we go back to being passive counter-punchers or stick with this.
You’re not allowed that opinion around here, of course as you say we won’t see it and it probably doesn’t matter now!
Thats plausible, thank you for clarifying. I see your point, but I am not sure, it accounts for all factors. While I agree on the overall approach and the recruitment, I think there is something to reading and understanding current developments in the world of football. Lets call it metas (hope thats a concept you are familiar with, I think it originates from gaming but it applies here as well). With Klopps rise to the top, pressing became very prominent. While Klopp wasn't the actual inventor, he certainly "advertised" that concept hugely. I think, it was a bit of the antidote to positional play, something Pep made a name for himself for a very strict approach to positioning and zones. While those two were frontrunners, those principles trickled down and when it comes to pressing, it has become something, most if not all high tier league teams can do (even while at differing degrees). One reaction to that trend was the emergence of more technical players throughout the team, players who weren't as affected by the press. In its current ultimate form you can see a City team that is almost stacked with technically really good players, almost all of them regarded as very very good dribblers. On the others side of that, you had ideas like De Zerbi, who was trying to facilitate fake transitions with his Brighton team to still get something out of transitional approaches.
If you ask me, all those developments (and thats not even touching on (big) data analysis for recruitment) have been missed by United. And thats mostly down to a) not having a competent football infrastructure apart from the current manager and b) by having managers who seemed oblivious to such trends. You might be able to say, well yes, if you go for the best of the best players then at some point, they'll be able to deal with pressing. But this way you'll always be chasing the teams to are more proactive. And I think, that is something, I am (for some odd reason honestly) a bit proud of the PL, that teams like Brighton and Brentford have shown that with modern principles and methods, you can severly punch above your weight.
This is the potential that I hope for United to finally tap into. And thats probably why I have a bit of a soft spot for ETH and Amorim these days because yes, they failed, failed ugly even. But I think they at least attempted to somehow make use of more sophisticated game plans. Because the other teams in the league make use of it. And I feel always uncomfortable watching a team like Westham or Wolves wiggleing themselves out of tricky situations by smart passing and being comfortable to hold onto the ball and comparing that with us shortly before we launch it hoping for the best.
I agree. I'd try to design it like that as well. For the future, in the past, that didn't work because for way too long the club seemed way too comfortable to step back and hand over the responsibility to the current manager but then was fast laying the blame onto him as well. But yes, in an ideal world, the manager is about points maximation while the DOF is about mid- and longterm squad planning. But those would still have to compromise with each other with the DOF having slightly more punch.
I agree with that and it's one that Real Madrid is a prime example of. They've pretty much forever ignored the trends and just built their squads as they always have, coached a bit more old fashioned style with Zidane and then Carlo, but they're the peak at that. It's safer and has less flop potential IMO.
My issue with trying to be a new Pep, push the new meta forward, create something new and lead new tactical trends is I just don't think that lends itself too well at the biggest clubs. Not in the Prem at least. We had 2 of the best modern managers in this league doing it with Pep and Klopp, both are very big exceptions to the norm. Most of the time, these managers are at smaller clubs who punch way above their weight by doing it with much less pressure and much less expectations. But they rarely actually turn a mediocre team into a top team. And how often do those managers actually step into big jobs and look like top managers?
For a big club with huge resources, I think it's just better to play the safer route like Real Madrid did. As the amount of managers who can really revolutionize the clubs tactics that you can actually get is like winning the lottery, while you can control improving your squad much more safely with a steady style of play. It's like a dream that's not worth pursuing IMO, or far too risky as we've seen with the dramatic collapses here. Steadily improve the squad, steadily build and steadily expand. You'll stay as a quarter final CL club pretty consistently and then get the right manager or players in, and you step up even further to be a truly top team. But you don't crash and burn ever 2 years.
Just for the record, I am not asking for us to bring in tactical innovator. Far from it. My point is that those principles have trickled down to most of the top level teams. They all make use of the potential those methods bring. We don't and therefor miss out. We don't have to reinvent the wheel but I think we have to at least update to the latest football OS. Since most teams are at least decent at pressing, there is just no way we can call ourselves an ambitious team if we cannot adequately react to it. And while you surely can have a certain amount of hope that good players will build their synergies without the manager interfering, it is just an unnecessary additional challenge. We don't have to become the best team against the press. But it shouldn't take the lightest bit of pressure to have half the team go into artillery mode.
I would agree that Real doesn't really make a case for a more systematic approach (although they brought in Xabi) but if you look away from them - I think the latest CL winner is a great example of more of system manager, same goes for Pep at City and that over years. Slot and Maresca would probably also run under the system manager flag, just as much as Conte, Flick, Tuchel. Probably even Kompany. Of course, no team gets to the highest tier without really great players. But having a well thought of concept also makes recruitment easier since you really understand for example, what kind of striker you really need and the go for the one that really suits you even if he missed out on the Golden Boot to another, more shiney player.
We aren't Real. And the last 10 years have made sure, that attempts to sell our project with "our history" will probably get more backlash than appreciation.
I guess, we have a different understanding of some terms - when I talk about systems and approaches, I mean broader levels - pressing or sitting deep, zonal marking or man marking, possession or transition, high block or midblock, winger provide width or winger cover the half spaces. Stuff that is a level beyond a formation.
It ties in with how it felt watching a lot of the home games, where we play well in patches but then concede a goal without the opposition having to take too many shots.
I can’t be bothered to look for the xGA data per game, but in terms of the games where the xG was over 2, it was Burnley at home - bad performance, Brentford at home - lost, Wolves away - scored 4, Bournemouth home - bad performance but exciting game.
So yes, the data shows positivity, but taking out the Wolves game, I’m not sure any of the Burnley, Brentford or Bournemouth games should be seen in a positive light.
I have not watched the video, but i have some thoughts and additions to your summary.
1. Is not a problem of the xG stat, it's a problem of all things statistics, i.e. biased interpretation to aid this agenda or that.
3. There's complementary x-stats to fill this obvious gap, for example kicker routinely lists not only xG but also expected assists, which does exactly what you describe and puts value to crosses and would-be last passes which did not yield an attempt for whatever reason.
I do think however that neither xG nor xA look at offsides, no matter how close they are, which may lead to major disparities between perceived chance creation and x stats.
4. To my understanding this is fully intentional and not a systematic oversight. You could always do another step where you correlate the xG chances to the individual players and their respective personal xG over- or underperformance, to get to a statement about how well they did relative to their average goal scoring prowess.
But xG as it is is intended to evaluate how well any team managed to createattacking/finishing positions, relative to all teams within the dataset, without looking at the actual players. It's what the name 'expected goal' implies - if any anonymous player from any anonymous team gets to take a shot from any given position, this is the overall probability, across all players and teams, that it yields a goal.
Compared to just looking at the number of attempts and number of goals scored you get additional information about the quality of the attempt and the quality of the 'attempter'. Top finishers will outperform their xG with actual goals while it's the opposite for poor ones, but xG additionally tells you whether they did it via out of nowhere screamers, or if the team constantly serves up golden opportunities for tap ins.