• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*****Tottenham Hotspur v Leicester ***OMT

DubaiSpur said:
I have my pet peeves with xG - primarily centred on the way every man and his dog assigns a different weighting to the various components of any given chance, to the point where it becomes essentially meaningless and is just one man or woman's opinion on a game, *but with stats*. Everyone can assign a different value to a particular part of a chance and come up with a different xG plot. That's my peeve - it's worthless given that fact. Michael Caley has his own equation, Sky have their own equation, and a million other twitter statisticians have their own.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do, but the end result is always similar. Caley had LEI - TOT: 0.8-2.5, ABP had them 0.4-2.0 and 11tegen11 had 0.89-2.36. Bottom line, all had Spurs as being superior. xG will not change the result of a match, but will rather silence those who like to moan that a team played brick, even though the stats show that they were just plain unlucky.
 
braineclipse said:
No disagreement that we weren't good enough from me. But again, these games happen to most teams most seasons. We didn't come into this game with the right intensity and attitude, but from that to speculating about underlying reasons for individual players to fit into some narrative is a huge leap.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, how were we not good enough? Yes, we didn't start with intensity, but we missed a brickload of chances and it took two goals of the season for them to score. Replay this game 100 times with the same performance from both teams and we win it at least 80 of them. You can't say a team played bad because players missed sitters, because it must have taken good playing to create those sitters to begin with. Against the Scum we were bad. Against West Brom we were labored. Against Leicester we played well enough to win handily. It just wasn't our night.
 
alekaras said:
I'm sorry, how were we not good enough? Yes, we didn't start with intensity, but we missed a brickload of chances and it took two goals of the season for them to score. Replay this game 100 times with the same performance from both teams and we win it at least 80 of them. You can't say a team played bad because players missed sitters, because it must have taken good playing to create those sitters to begin with. Against the Scum we were bad. Against West Brom we were labored. Against Leicester we played well enough to win handily. It just wasn't our night.
Click to expand...

I really don't think we win 80% of the time in that game.

We had chances, but so did they. Vardy's finish was excellent, but he was also through on goal. Mahrez did very well, but it was a very dangerous counter attack where he got isolated vs one of our centre backs. They also had a chance cleared off the line.

We did well in the second half, at least well enough to earn a draw. But they could also have counter attacked us into a worse defeat.

My point is more that we can't keep starting games like this. We can't have many more first half performances like this and expect to reach our targets. We quite simply have to improve. Even if we did well in the second half. That's not good enough.
 
braineclipse said:
I really don't think we win 80% of the time in that game.

We had chances, but so did they. Vardy's finish was excellent, but he was also through on goal. Mahrez did very well, but it was a very dangerous counter attack where he got isolated vs one of our centre backs. They also had a chance cleared off the line.

We did well in the second half, at least well enough to earn a draw. But they could also have counter attacked us into a worse defeat.

My point is more that we can't keep starting games like this. We can't have many more first half performances like this and expect to reach our targets. We quite simply have to improve. Even if we did well in the second half. That's not good enough.
Click to expand...
Agree about needing to start more brightly, but that doesn't contradict my statement that we would have won this game 80% of the time. Just because we created our chances later in the game doesn't mean that we didn't deserve to win and wouldn't do so 80% of the time. I mean, we missed 4 sitters and they scored two worldies. How often does that happen? And as for their goals, Vardy may have been through on goal, but the only thing he could have done was what he did. And that's something that, if you asked him to do it another 10 times, maybe he gets two of them on target. Same with Mahrez' goal. Wasn't much of a counter attack, but he cut inside and curled an amazing shot from outside the box. How many of these do you see?

In any case, I think the result and the fact we started sluggish might be clouding our view of the game in its entirety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back