Aston Villa vs Newcastle United pre match thread

[Brend'Watkins]

I dismissed that as soon as the bloke opened his mouth.  We're not as good as people think we are because of the numbers.  Complete bollocks. 

[chrisw1]

I dismissed that as soon as the bloke opened his mouth.  We're not as good as people think we are because of the numbers.  Complete bollocks. 

It's not bollock Bren.  Watch the whole video then make up your mind. 

[chrisw1]

Ha, just posted that vid in the Europe thread as the discussion might get stopped here once the pre-match thread is moved.

Yes, probably better discussed over there - good point.

[Villa Lew]

Looking forward to this one, has the potential to being a cracking match, going Villa to win by the odd goal.

[Risso]

I dismissed that as soon as the bloke opened his mouth.  We're not as good as people think we are because of the numbers.  Complete bollocks. 

It's not bollock Bren.  Watch the whole video then make up your mind. 

Watched it. Absolute bollocks of the highest order.

One example, according to the stats he's presenting, we were "lucky" against Spurs. No we weren't, in any way whatsoever. It was a dull first half where we kept it tight and they didn't have a shot on target. Second half, we were much the better side, had more chances and shots and deservedly won. We had Olsen in goal FFS, and anything remotely close to him usually goes straight in the net. The fact he didn't have a save to make shows it was an excellent defensive performance.

[PeterWithe]

I think its interesting as long as you dont use these stats and the conclusions drawn from them exclusively. Stats have a place in the game and thats why so many teams have a department to analyse them, but they arent the be all and end all.

[OCD]

Was it paul_e that said the tactics Emery favours will always lead to goals scored always being better than Expected goals?

Stats can be interesting in isolation but when extrapolated to form conclusions, it can be misleading.

Fwiw, I think it's hard to not say we're over-performing. We're getting by with 11/12 players who you can see have a future with us and we should have a big summer ahead to improve what we have and be able to achieve things on merit rather than being seen as over-performing.

[olaftab]

I dismissed that as soon as the bloke opened his mouth.  We're not as good as people think we are because of the numbers.  Complete bollocks. 

It's not bollock Bren.  Watch the whole video then make up your mind. 

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]

Villa to win 2-1. A late winner. Geordies moaning like fuck. Fuck them. All.

[Villa in Denmark]

Villa to win 2-1. A late winner. Geordies moaning like fuck. Fuck them. All.

Could only be bettered by giving them a good 4 or 5 goal shoeing.

[Risso]

We've had comfortable 2-0 home wins for the last three years against them, and I see no reason to start doing things differently now.

A comfortable 2-0 home win.

[paul_e]

Was it paul_e that said the tactics Emery favours will always lead to goals scored always being better than Expected goals?

Stats can be interesting in isolation but when extrapolated to form conclusions, it can be misleading.

Fwiw, I think it's hard to not say we're over-performing. We're getting by with 11/12 players who you can see have a future with us and we should have a big summer ahead to improve what we have and be able to achieve things on merit rather than being seen as over-performing.

Yep, last season his team actually underperformed on goals scored (7 down on xG) but massively overperformed on goals conceded (nearly 11 less than the numbers suggest).

Aside from that he was pretty much as expected at Villarreal but his stats for Arsenal and PSG reflect what he's done with us.

Moving on I think we do have some players over-performing right now but my point all along is that i don't think that's luck, it's form, interchanging the 2 takes away from the fact that improvements in form are something you can control. Fundamentally managers like Bruce and Gerrard rely on a bit of luck to win games, managers like Emery use tactics, coaching and a tight focus on specifics to improve players form and create exactly the sort of thing we've seen. That's why I don't like it being called luck, it doesn't mean what we've seen is entirely sustainable with the squad we have (it also doesn't mean it isn't) but it is a situation we've created through our own efforts, not by just relying on chance.

Final point on xG/xGA/xP (and with apologies to bob who took exception to this before) - in general teams in the top half will over-perform on 2 or 3 of those and teams in the bottom half will under-perform on 2 or 3, that's the effect of form and confidence and it can't be accounted for in the stats without making assumptions but its a very real and measurable thing.

[chrisw1]

I think its interesting as long as you dont use these stats and the conclusions drawn from them exclusively. Stats have a place in the game and thats why so many teams have a department to analyse them, but they arent the be all and end all.

Exactly.

There's no point looking at the Spurs game and saying, told you it's all bullshit.  Stats give a general picture over a period of time.  It's not some kind of snake oil, why do people think clubs use them so heavily? 

[paul_e]

I think its interesting as long as you dont use these stats and the conclusions drawn from them exclusively. Stats have a place in the game and thats why so many teams have a department to analyse them, but they arent the be all and end all.

Exactly.

There's no point looking at the Spurs game and saying, told you it's all bullshit.  Stats give a general picture over a period of time.  It's not some kind of snake oil, why do people think clubs use them so heavily? 

Just to be completely clear here, I'm a stats nerd, I have qualifications in data analysis and, if anything, I'm over-reliant on stats to make my points (there's plenty of evidence for this on this forum, I'm sure I've bored most of you with at various times).


I obviously see the value of stats and absolutely get why clubs use them, I just have issues with seeing stats being 'off' and jumping straight to vague concepts of luck instead of looking for simpler explanations is a bad idea.

[Smithy]

I think its interesting as long as you dont use these stats and the conclusions drawn from them exclusively. Stats have a place in the game and thats why so many teams have a department to analyse them, but they arent the be all and end all.

Exactly.

There's no point looking at the Spurs game and saying, told you it's all bullshit.  Stats give a general picture over a period of time.  It's not some kind of snake oil, why do people think clubs use them so heavily? 

Indeed, stats can be a great tool for revealing hidden (or less obvious) insights, but only when you use them correctly.  The shorter the period of analysis, the less relevant they become.  Game by game they can tell you SOME valuable things, but over a period of games, or a season, they can tell you plenty.

It's also worth pointing out that the sort of stats WE see as fans, is a fraction of what the clubs see with the statistical analysis they pay for on a game by game basis.  The younger managers and coaches in the game today are all over this stuff.

Personally I'd love to see some of the statistical analysis that goes on after the games we play.  It won't ever become public, as there will be a competitive advantage to keeping it secret, but I guarantee it's happening.