Will we qualify for the CL?

[Brazilian Villain]

Feels a lot stronger, even with the midfield issue.

Plus we only had a 3 point cushion to 5th (Spurs) and an 8 point cushion to 6th (West Ham, when they were "sh*t" under Moyes)

[cdbearsfan]

Yeah, you definitly could.

Duran's probably more conducive to pinging in a thunderbastard from 30 yards though.

The whole squad does that now

Not all of them. Martínez and Bizot need to up their game.

[SaddVillan]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/video/nxwGDhFWwOtVnYB?source=athletic_user_shared_video

Bugger xG

[Mellin]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

[Smithy]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

I think this is precisely it.  xG is based on real-world data, which means they've looked at shots from outside the box historically, and realise x% of them go in under certain circumstances - but long shots historically would be under much more pressure, and with more obstacles directly in front of them.  I'm also convinced it hasn't been tweaked to adjust for the "Pep-ification" of football in recent years, where teams will try to almost walk it in, rather than waste possession on a low-probability shot.  The fact that xG had the Newcastle cross that Barnes got a touch on as TWENTY times more likely to result in a goal than Rogers shot shows how out of whack it is.

All that said, I STILL think it's a good measure, generally speaking, of the quality of chances you're creating on aggregate (over a run of games, rather than an individual game).  A low xG doesn't mean you won't score goals like we do, but a higher xG can mean you're missing good chances.  If your defence is giving away high xG numbers each game, you've probably got a problem.

[Percy McCarthy]

Football Rankings on X reckon fifth place in the PL is certain to be awarded a CL spot.

Hope we win the league, but happy enough with fifth. Hopefully (again, if we’re out of contention for the title), we can afford to concentrate on winning the Europa League towards the end of the season.

[LeeB]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

I think this is precisely it.  xG is based on real-world data, which means they've looked at shots from outside the box historically, and realise x% of them go in under certain circumstances - but long shots historically would be under much more pressure, and with more obstacles directly in front of them.  I'm also convinced it hasn't been tweaked to adjust for the "Pep-ification" of football in recent years, where teams will try to almost walk it in, rather than waste possession on a low-probability shot.  The fact that xG had the Newcastle cross that Barnes got a touch on as TWENTY times more likely to result in a goal than Rogers shot shows how out of whack it is.

All that said, I STILL think it's a good measure, generally speaking, of the quality of chances you're creating on aggregate (over a run of games, rather than an individual game).  A low xG doesn't mean you won't score goals like we do, but a higher xG can mean you're missing good chances.  If your defence is giving away high xG numbers each game, you've probably got a problem.

The thing that irritates me is that we work extremely hard to create the openings for these long range shots with sublime passing and movement and it often gets overlooked, even when they edit the highlights they cut out the passage of play that led to it.

[Somniloquism]

It was a shoo-in before the last round of games but the results and finishing points has pretty much locked it in now. We are 4 points ahead of Portugal and Germany who only have 4 and 6 teams in respectively. Even if all English teams bar Villa failed in the next hurdle I can't see 5th reward not being an option.

[algy]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

I think this is precisely it.  xG is based on real-world data, which means they've looked at shots from outside the box historically, and realise x% of them go in under certain circumstances - but long shots historically would be under much more pressure, and with more obstacles directly in front of them.  I'm also convinced it hasn't been tweaked to adjust for the "Pep-ification" of football in recent years, where teams will try to almost walk it in, rather than waste possession on a low-probability shot.  The fact that xG had the Newcastle cross that Barnes got a touch on as TWENTY times more likely to result in a goal than Rogers shot shows how out of whack it is.

All that said, I STILL think it's a good measure, generally speaking, of the quality of chances you're creating on aggregate (over a run of games, rather than an individual game).  A low xG doesn't mean you won't score goals like we do, but a higher xG can mean you're missing good chances.  If your defence is giving away high xG numbers each game, you've probably got a problem.

I suspect half the problem is that people are extrapolating opinions without thinking about what they’re extrapolating them on.

xG is just a statistic - in th example you give, historically in similar circumstances 2% of shots end in goals. That’s just a fact. And it’s probably reasonable to assume that a team who outperforms their xG for a few games is getting lucky, and a team that underperforms is unlucky. But if it’s happening over a longer period of time, the less likely it is to be luck and the more likely it is that there’s another explanation (which could be any number of things and you’d actually have to properly look at the team rather than taking pot shots based on generalities)

[Dave]

Football Rankings on X reckon fifth place in the PL is certain to be awarded a CL spot.

It has been for months.

The moment all the English clubs looked like they would get through the Champions League group phases and clubs from any of the four other countries (Italy / Germany / Spain / France) that could plausibly finish ahead of England looked like they wouldn't, it was nailed on.

So about three gameweeks in.

[Percy McCarthy]

Football Rankings on X reckon fifth place in the PL is certain to be awarded a CL spot.

It has been for months.

The moment all the English clubs looked like they would get through the Champions League group phases and clubs from any of the four other countries (Italy / Germany / Spain / France) that could plausibly finish ahead of England looked like they wouldn't, it was nailed on.

So about three gameweeks in.

I know and I’ve long been annoyed at podcasters and the like emphasising the importance of finishing in the top four. Just posting this because FR are saying it’s statistically certain now, 100%.

[Smithy]

Football Rankings on X reckon fifth place in the PL is certain to be awarded a CL spot.

It has been for months.

The moment all the English clubs looked like they would get through the Champions League group phases and clubs from any of the four other countries (Italy / Germany / Spain / France) that could plausibly finish ahead of England looked like they wouldn't, it was nailed on.

So about three gameweeks in.

I know and I’ve long been annoyed at podcasters and the like emphasising the importance of finishing in the top four. Just posting this because FR are saying it’s statistically certain now, 100%.

I don't mind it being talked about as the "top 4", as they're the only places guaranteed to get Champions League spots each season.  I'd obviously take 5th and Champions League football, but I'd MUCH prefer 4th simply because it avoids all the "you only got in because the rest of the league is so good" arguments.

Feb is a MASSIVE month for us, as on paper, every league game is definitely winnable.  We play:

8th at home
13th away
12th at home
16th at home
20th away

In the midst of an injury crisis, that's about as kind a set of fixtures as we could hope for.

Winning all five might be tough, but if we can get 10 points from that lot, I'll be surprised if we're not still 10-ish points clear of 6th going into March, which would mean one of the teams below us having to make up at LEAST a point a game on us to overtake us and push us out of the top 5.  That would be some ask, given 2.2 points a game is title winning form.

[brontebilly]

In light of all the injuries who knows but I think a realistic target would be our highest points total under Emery in the PL, 69 points. So another 8 wins. 8 wins from the last 15 games should be well achievable. As we saw recently v Everton don't think we mark up any fixture as an easy win. Key game v Brentford, really need Tammy, Luiz and Bailey to make an immediate impact.

[lovejoy]

xG is underscored for shots outside the box. Convinced of it. I think it was Rogers at West Ham which came in at 0.02. No one blocking, loads of ability, not actually that far out. It's going in more often than 1 in 50. What Villa are basically doing is exploiting that error/bullshit.

Defenders defend inside the box now, as well as midfielders as that's where the highest xG is. A long shot is usually a last resort as nothing is on. What we do is INTENTIONALLY work the best shooting opportunity from outside the box, ergo increasing the xG, but it stays at 0.02, so fuck them and their shit data.

i noticed Newcastles xG last week was much higher than ours. On the graph they showed a just of about 1.25 on around the 55th minute. I can only assume that cross that two players almost got a touch on counted wice (say 60% each) which is clearly nonsense as one opportunity cannot have an xG of more than 1 logically. it is a flawed system no doubt.