Wolves 0-1 Aston Villa Post Match Thread

[RamboandBruno]

[They owned midfield in the second half ... they created enough chances to win by a couple of goals let's be honest.

I think this is plain wrong.
They didn't 'own' midfield and - whilst they created a couple of good chances - they didn't take them. We also created chances in the second half: Luiz, McGinn and Watkins all had good goalscoring chances.

Glad you said this. 100% agree, them owning midfield is just watching a different game tbh.

[Luffbralion]

[They owned midfield in the second half ... they created enough chances to win by a couple of goals let's be honest.

I think this is plain wrong.
They didn't 'own' midfield and - whilst they created a couple of good chances - they didn't take them. We also created chances in the second half: Luiz, McGinn and Watkins all had good goalscoring chances.

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

[cdbearsfan]

If Brontebilly won the lottery he'd moan that it was raining when he went to collect his winnings.

[paul_e]

[They owned midfield in the second half ... they created enough chances to win by a couple of goals let's be honest.

I think this is plain wrong.
They didn't 'own' midfield and - whilst they created a couple of good chances - they didn't take them. We also created chances in the second half: Luiz, McGinn and Watkins all had good goalscoring chances.

I think the watkins chance that deflected towards the bottom corner was the best save in the game and the closest either team came to scoring in open play.

[tomd2103]

[They owned midfield in the second half ... they created enough chances to win by a couple of goals let's be honest.

I think this is plain wrong.
They didn't 'own' midfield and - whilst they created a couple of good chances - they didn't take them. We also created chances in the second half: Luiz, McGinn and Watkins all had good goalscoring chances.

Glad you said this. 100% agree, them owning midfield is just watching a different game tbh.

I think quite a few of their attacks came from us giving the ball away sloppily in the midfield area. 

I wouldn't say either side really dominated during any part of the game really.

[Matt C]

Agreed, but we have one out on loan at the moment.

How’s he getting on?

Sorry for the delay in replying. He's doing well and gaining invaluable experience. He is popular with their fans. Had a few starts and appearances as sub. Scored a couple of goals. All looking good. Back at the Villa in January.

Glad he’s doing well, can only improve him and hope he’ll get a chance at Villa before long.

[robbo1874]

Darius wrote a best selling book in the same situation.  Sitting on his arse in Turkey.

I think Darius had a blog or something. It was unintentionally funny, with stories of his washing machine breaking down and other mundane shit, which just seemed funny in its every day banality to me. I felt sorry for him over there. Think he tried to do a self operation on his toe or something like that- might be wrong, memory’s not the best

[Rory]

Darius wrote a best selling book in the same situation.  Sitting on his arse in Turkey.

Think he tried to do a self operation on his toe or something like that- might be wrong, memory’s not the best

Wasn't that when he was with Man City? Had a blister on his toe so took a Black & Decker to it.

[olaftab]

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

Luffbralion can you explain that to me please. Is it we were .38 in 1 rather than .12 in 1 chance of scoring?

[hipkiss92]

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

Luffbralion can you explain that to me please. Is it we were .38 in 1 rather than .12 in 1 chance of scoring?

It suggests our attempts on goal would typically result in us scoring 1.38 goals in a game, with Wolves scoring 1.12.

xG assigns a value (0 - 1) to every shot based on historical data, of how likely it is to result in a goal. So a shot from the halfway line would be 0.01, whereas a shot to an open goal from the six yard box would something lime 0.98. So the better chances you have, the higher your xG would be. Over the course of a season, is a good measure of whether you are unlucky or not.

Case in point - our game against Southampton, our xG was 2.52, Southampton's was 0.86. But we lost due to them scoring two direct free kicks (normally quite unlikely to go in), and a 25 yard screamer from Ings. Efforts which probably 9/10 don't go in.

[olaftab]

Thank you. I assume xG is worked out by an algorithm following TV feed rather than someone sitting there with a pen and paper doing it subjectively and estimating?

[ChicagoLion]

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

Luffbralion can you explain that to me please. Is it we were .38 in 1 rather than .12 in 1 chance of scoring?

It suggests our attempts on goal would typically result in us scoring 1.38 goals in a game, with Wolves scoring 1.12.

xG assigns a value (0 - 1) to every shot based on historical data, of how likely it is to result in a goal. So a shot from the halfway line would be 0.01, whereas a shot to an open goal from the six yard box would something lime 0.98. So the better chances you have, the higher your xG would be. Over the course of a season, is a good measure of whether you are unlucky or not.

Case in point - our game against Southampton, our xG was 2.52, Southampton's was 0.86. But we lost due to them scoring two direct free kicks (normally quite unlikely to go in), and a 25 yard screamer from Ings. Efforts which probably 9/10 don't go in.

God  help us.

[wince]

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

Luffbralion can you explain that to me please. Is it we were .38 in 1 rather than .12 in 1 chance of scoring?

It suggests our attempts on goal would typically result in us scoring 1.38 goals in a game, with Wolves scoring 1.12.

xG assigns a value (0 - 1) to every shot based on historical data, of how likely it is to result in a goal. So a shot from the halfway line would be 0.01, whereas a shot to an open goal from the six yard box would something lime 0.98. So the better chances you have, the higher your xG would be. Over the course of a season, is a good measure of whether you are unlucky or not.

Case in point - our game against Southampton, our xG was 2.52, Southampton's was 0.86. But we lost due to them scoring two direct free kicks (normally quite unlikely to go in), and a 25 yard screamer from Ings. Efforts which probably 9/10 don't go in.

God  help us.

Quite agree. Expected goals is one stat I really loath. Totally pointless

[PeterWithe]

According to MOTD our expected goals bettered theirs by 1.38 to 1.12.

Luffbralion can you explain that to me please. Is it we were .38 in 1 rather than .12 in 1 chance of scoring?

It suggests our attempts on goal would typically result in us scoring 1.38 goals in a game, with Wolves scoring 1.12.

xG assigns a value (0 - 1) to every shot based on historical data, of how likely it is to result in a goal. So a shot from the halfway line would be 0.01, whereas a shot to an open goal from the six yard box would something lime 0.98. So the better chances you have, the higher your xG would be. Over the course of a season, is a good measure of whether you are unlucky or not.

Case in point - our game against Southampton, our xG was 2.52, Southampton's was 0.86. But we lost due to them scoring two direct free kicks (normally quite unlikely to go in), and a 25 yard screamer from Ings. Efforts which probably 9/10 don't go in.

Thanks, I've always wondered what that was but not enough to go and find out.

[West Derby Villan]

God I hate stats