UEFA Europa Conference League - Alkmaar, Legia and Zrinjski

[FatSam]

Man. United getting a few injuries now. Lisandro Martinez did his achilles, Varane went off at half time and we know Rashford probably won't be back until May.

Really fancy our chances of two successive league wins at Old Trafford (they also play Spurs away on the Thursday before that match). Have we ever done that before (guessing early 1900s?)

08/03/30 Manchester United 2-3 Aston Villa
30/08/30 Manchester United 3-4 Aston Villa

[eamonn]

What about the last time we doubled them ?

[ADVILLAFAN]

What about the last time we doubled them ?

I was thinking that. Think we drew both games against them in 1981

[eamonn]

Tifo weighs-in on whether we've been fortunate with our wins, or not.

*Spoiler - yes but in terms of points gained, we are over-performing to the same level that Arsenal are.

[olaftab]

Good stuff. I agree with the analysis and do believe that we have overperformed and the manager has squeezed more out of the lemon. This is not sustainable unless we get better players in the summer.

[Axl Rose]

I stopped listening when he called Forest 'Nottingham'.

Agree with your getting better players point, Aftab, mate.

[Bad English]

Man. United getting a few injuries now. Lisandro Martinez did his achilles, Varane went off at half time and we know Rashford probably won't be back until May.

Really fancy our chances of two successive league wins at Old Trafford (they also play Spurs away on the Thursday before that match). Have we ever done that before (guessing early 1900s?)

08/03/30 Manchester United 2-3 Aston Villa
30/08/30 Manchester United 3-4 Aston Villa

92 years ago, on the day Warren Buffet was born.

[chrisw1]

I stopped listening when he called Forest 'Nottingham'.

Agree with your getting better players point, Aftab, mate.

It's a good analysis.  If you're interested in Villa then it's strange to stop listening because of that.

[paul_e]

It's ok analysis but skips over some fairly important points. For example he says that strikers over-performing against xG isn't all that unusual and hints towards some of the reasons for it but doesn't really build on the point.

It's important because if you, as a manager, highlight a way to get your striker to out-perform on xG then the team will also out-perform expectations. That then directly translates to points, so you out-perform there as well. Get your goalkeeper out-performing as well (by having the best in the world) and suddenly all of your numbers are exceeding expectations on the basis of 2 players, and 1 of those isn't doing anything that you can't see replicated regularly. Yes the numbers look like a massive swing that will be hard to maintain but as you break it down the gap becomes a lot more understandable.

[pablo_picasso]

It's ok analysis but skips over some fairly important points. For example he says that strikers over-performing against xG isn't all that unusual and hints towards some of the reasons for it but doesn't really build on the point.

It's important because if you, as a manager, highlight a way to get your striker to out-perform on xG then the team will also out-perform expectations. That then directly translates to points, so you out-perform there as well. Get your goalkeeper out-performing as well (by having the best in the world) and suddenly all of your numbers are exceeding expectations on the basis of 2 players, and 1 of those isn't doing anything that you can't see replicated regularly. Yes the numbers look like a massive swing that will be hard to maintain but as you break it down the gap becomes a lot more understandable.

"Over performing against xG" means the grand total of fuck all.

XG is the most pointless "stat" in football.

I watched a game last year in the Australian A'League where one teams xG was predicted to be 0.003 & the other 0.000.

The game finished either 4-3 or 5-4. I cannot recall, but either way, both teams scored more than 3 each.

Whenever I see xG mentioned in football, it makes me want to punch my cat...

[Risso]

It's ok analysis but skips over some fairly important points. For example he says that strikers over-performing against xG isn't all that unusual and hints towards some of the reasons for it but doesn't really build on the point.

It's important because if you, as a manager, highlight a way to get your striker to out-perform on xG then the team will also out-perform expectations. That then directly translates to points, so you out-perform there as well. Get your goalkeeper out-performing as well (by having the best in the world) and suddenly all of your numbers are exceeding expectations on the basis of 2 players, and 1 of those isn't doing anything that you can't see replicated regularly. Yes the numbers look like a massive swing that will be hard to maintain but as you break it down the gap becomes a lot more understandable.

Also, if you've got one of the very best keepers in the world, then them making outstanding saves ins't "outperforming" it's them doing their job. And Ollie has clearly worked very hard on certain weaknesses in his game, and so has very clearly and tangibly improved. I'd argue again then that he's not "outperforming" he's just greatly improved, such that he now takes a higher proportion of chances that come his way. I'd say the xG statisticians need to go back and recalculate their results in terms of real world data in the same way that the IMF and BoE do for inflation figures, for example.

[pauliewalnuts]

He described Spurs away as one of the 'lucky' games.

We controlled that match from start to finish. Not much luck about that.

[paul_e]

It's ok analysis but skips over some fairly important points. For example he says that strikers over-performing against xG isn't all that unusual and hints towards some of the reasons for it but doesn't really build on the point.

It's important because if you, as a manager, highlight a way to get your striker to out-perform on xG then the team will also out-perform expectations. That then directly translates to points, so you out-perform there as well. Get your goalkeeper out-performing as well (by having the best in the world) and suddenly all of your numbers are exceeding expectations on the basis of 2 players, and 1 of those isn't doing anything that you can't see replicated regularly. Yes the numbers look like a massive swing that will be hard to maintain but as you break it down the gap becomes a lot more understandable.

Also, if you've got one of the very best keepers in the world, then them making outstanding saves ins't "outperforming" it's them doing their job. And Ollie has clearly worked very hard on certain weaknesses in his game, and so has very clearly and tangibly improved. I'd argue again then that he's not "outperforming" he's just greatly improved, such that he now takes a higher proportion of chances that come his way. I'd say the xG statisticians need to go back and recalculate their results in terms of real world data in the same way that the IMF and BoE do for inflation figures, for example.

My point on Emi was basically the same thing, a goalkeeper as good a him is always going to "over-perform" because he's just good. Our goals conceded stat should always be better than xGA purely by his presence in the team.

Watkins is more complicated because, as I said on the geordie pre-match thread, the stats will never be able to take form and confidence into account. All the work he's done has increased his confidence and that has seen an improvement in his form. That might be temporary or it might be his new level and him scoring more than xG could just become a standard for him, like it is for players like Haaland, Kane, Lewandowski, etc. The important thing is that it's over-performing against global averages, not against personal ability.

I'm not comparing him to those players, just pointing out that xG doesn't work for the truly exceptional, whether that's permanent or temporary, that applies to Emi as well, obviously.

[Toronto Villa]

In the end the games are played on the pitch but we don’t have it easy the rest of the way.

[Nev]

I preferred the days when an assessment of your next opponents was "we'll do these, they're shit".