What do the stats say?

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

popillius said:
It shows that our strikers have scored seven goals between them. Which is pathetic.

This is a pointless, meaningless table. If anyone in their right mind thinks Daka is anything other than utterly hopeless then they need surgery. He's a concrete duffer.
Click to expand...

Or the stats do show he has potential and you just talk a lot of bollocks…
 
popillius said:
I also have eyes.

He has the same potential that folk kept telling me Slimani, Musa and Silva had.

He's ****ing awful.
Click to expand...

To suggest he is ****ing awful is just silly. Is he the finished article... no. Will he get better… who knows. But in a very bad season so far he has done as well as any of our strikers, including one of the best we’ve ever had…

Personally I think he plays in a very similar way to how Vardy did before this season and Daka gets in some good positions. If he can get stronger, so he doesn’t get knocked off the ball so easy, and we play to his strengths he could be very good…

That doesn’t necessarily mean he is going to be a star for us, but i think it mean he should be given a couple of more seasons to develop and see what he can do…
 
Willlow said:
To suggest he is ****ing awful is just silly. Is he the finished article... no. Will he get better… who knows. But in a very bad season so far he has done as well as any of our strikers, including one of the best we’ve ever had…

Personally I think he plays in a very similar way to how Vardy did before this season and Daka gets in some good positions. If he can get stronger, so he doesn’t get knocked off the ball so easy, and we play to his strengths he could be very good…

That doesn’t necessarily mean he is going to be a star for us, but i think it mean he should be given a couple of more seasons to develop and see what he can do…
Click to expand...
He has so little control. His brain is nit connected to his feet in any way.

I'd love to be proved wrong but all evidence so far points to another Ahmed Musa.
 
popillius said:
He has so little control. His brain is nit connected to his feet in any way.

I'd love to be proved wrong but all evidence so far points to another Ahmed Musa.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows that Musa played 21 times in the PL and scored 2 goals and 0 assists.

Daka has played 43 times and scored 9 goals and 6 assists…
 
Firstly, please bore off with your xG tedium. This is only for people interested.

Here are some highlights from the PL table based on xG.

1st Man City - Actual 89 points, xG 83 points
2nd Arsenal - Actual 84 points, xG 73 points

Both sides over-achieved substanially in the same way - they made more of their goalscoring chances than expected suggesting that they have very good finishers. In Arsenals case, they scored a lot from outside the area.

In 3rd Newcastle were almost exactly the same actual vs. xG. In the xG table, Brighton finished 4th.

The side that made the most of their opportunities all season was Spurs thanks mainly to the finishing of Kane. Their defending was terrible all season though with them being the worst at preventing sides from turning chances into goals.

The worst side for converting chances was unsurprisingly Chelsea. They 'should' have had 14 more goals than they did.

The two best 'defensive' teams, i.e. preventing goals from chances created, were Fulham (1st) and Everton (2nd). Both had keepers that had excellent seasons and defenders prepared to do whatever it took.

None of the xG bottom three actually got relegated. They were Forest (18th), Wolves (19th) and Bournemouth (20th).

City finished in 12th place, a clear 10 points away from the relegation zone. Our finishing was not terrible at all. We've typically exceeded our xG for goals scored due to Vardy but even without his goals, we did okay. The problem (unsurprisingly) is our defending. We ended up dropping points in so many tight games due to sloppy defending and poor goalkeeping.

In terms of individual players, by far our best attacking option was Iheanacho with a 0.49 xG per game. This puts him sandwiched between Ollie Watkins and Julian Alvarez in the PL rankings which gives you an idea of his level. Our next best was Vardy who was equal with a player like Che Adams.

In terms of creativity, our best player was . . . Ayoze Perez! Second was Iheanacho and third Maddison. Nobody else was worth a shit at it.
 
Brown Nose said:
Firstly, please bore off with your xG tedium. This is only for people interested.

Here are some highlights from the PL table based on xG.

1st Man City - Actual 89 points, xG 83 points
2nd Arsenal - Actual 84 points, xG 73 points

Both sides over-achieved substanially in the same way - they made more of their goalscoring chances than expected suggesting that they have very good finishers. In Arsenals case, they scored a lot from outside the area.

In 3rd Newcastle were almost exactly the same actual vs. xG. In the xG table, Brighton finished 4th.

The side that made the most of their opportunities all season was Spurs thanks mainly to the finishing of Kane. Their defending was terrible all season though with them being the worst at preventing sides from turning chances into goals.

The worst side for converting chances was unsurprisingly Chelsea. They 'should' have had 14 more goals than they did.

The two best 'defensive' teams, i.e. preventing goals from chances created, were Fulham (1st) and Everton (2nd). Both had keepers that had excellent seasons and defenders prepared to do whatever it took.

None of the xG bottom three actually got relegated. They were Forest (18th), Wolves (19th) and Bournemouth (20th).

City finished in 12th place, a clear 10 points away from the relegation zone. Our finishing was not terrible at all. We've typically exceeded our xG for goals scored due to Vardy but even without his goals, we did okay. The problem (unsurprisingly) is our defending. We ended up dropping points in so many tight games due to sloppy defending and poor goalkeeping.

In terms of individual players, by far our best attacking option was Iheanacho with a 0.49 xG per game. This puts him sandwiched between Ollie Watkins and Julian Alvarez in the PL rankings which gives you an idea of his level. Our next best was Vardy who was equal with a player like Che Adams.

In terms of creativity, our best player was . . . Ayoze Perez! Second was Iheanacho and third Maddison. Nobody else was worth a shit at it.
Click to expand...
Perez created more than Maddison, yes, that sounds right.
 
Brown Nose said:
Firstly, please bore off with your xG tedium. This is only for people interested.

Here are some highlights from the PL table based on xG.

1st Man City - Actual 89 points, xG 83 points
2nd Arsenal - Actual 84 points, xG 73 points

Both sides over-achieved substanially in the same way - they made more of their goalscoring chances than expected suggesting that they have very good finishers. In Arsenals case, they scored a lot from outside the area.

In 3rd Newcastle were almost exactly the same actual vs. xG. In the xG table, Brighton finished 4th.

The side that made the most of their opportunities all season was Spurs thanks mainly to the finishing of Kane. Their defending was terrible all season though with them being the worst at preventing sides from turning chances into goals.

The worst side for converting chances was unsurprisingly Chelsea. They 'should' have had 14 more goals than they did.

The two best 'defensive' teams, i.e. preventing goals from chances created, were Fulham (1st) and Everton (2nd). Both had keepers that had excellent seasons and defenders prepared to do whatever it took.

None of the xG bottom three actually got relegated. They were Forest (18th), Wolves (19th) and Bournemouth (20th).

City finished in 12th place, a clear 10 points away from the relegation zone. Our finishing was not terrible at all. We've typically exceeded our xG for goals scored due to Vardy but even without his goals, we did okay. The problem (unsurprisingly) is our defending. We ended up dropping points in so many tight games due to sloppy defending and poor goalkeeping.

In terms of individual players, by far our best attacking option was Iheanacho with a 0.49 xG per game. This puts him sandwiched between Ollie Watkins and Julian Alvarez in the PL rankings which gives you an idea of his level. Our next best was Vardy who was equal with a player like Che Adams.

In terms of creativity, our best player was . . . Ayoze Perez! Second was Iheanacho and third Maddison. Nobody else was worth a shit at it.
Click to expand...

Glad we finished 12th, that makes me feel much better.
 
Brown Nose said:
Firstly, please bore off with your xG tedium. This is only for people interested.

Here are some highlights from the PL table based on xG.

1st Man City - Actual 89 points, xG 83 points
2nd Arsenal - Actual 84 points, xG 73 points

Both sides over-achieved substanially in the same way - they made more of their goalscoring chances than expected suggesting that they have very good finishers. In Arsenals case, they scored a lot from outside the area.

In 3rd Newcastle were almost exactly the same actual vs. xG. In the xG table, Brighton finished 4th.

The side that made the most of their opportunities all season was Spurs thanks mainly to the finishing of Kane. Their defending was terrible all season though with them being the worst at preventing sides from turning chances into goals.

The worst side for converting chances was unsurprisingly Chelsea. They 'should' have had 14 more goals than they did.

The two best 'defensive' teams, i.e. preventing goals from chances created, were Fulham (1st) and Everton (2nd). Both had keepers that had excellent seasons and defenders prepared to do whatever it took.

None of the xG bottom three actually got relegated. They were Forest (18th), Wolves (19th) and Bournemouth (20th).

City finished in 12th place, a clear 10 points away from the relegation zone. Our finishing was not terrible at all. We've typically exceeded our xG for goals scored due to Vardy but even without his goals, we did okay. The problem (unsurprisingly) is our defending. We ended up dropping points in so many tight games due to sloppy defending and poor goalkeeping.

In terms of individual players, by far our best attacking option was Iheanacho with a 0.49 xG per game. This puts him sandwiched between Ollie Watkins and Julian Alvarez in the PL rankings which gives you an idea of his level. Our next best was Vardy who was equal with a player like Che Adams.

In terms of creativity, our best player was . . . Ayoze Perez! Second was Iheanacho and third Maddison. Nobody else was worth a shit at it.
Click to expand...
Our XGc stats suggest that by simply signing a competent replacement for Schmeichel last summer, we would have comfortably stayed up.

Danny Ward had an average XGc of negative 0.34 per 90 mins, meaning every three matches played he cost us a goal.

Iversen wasn't much better with XGc of negative 0.24 per 90 mins, meaning every four matches played he cost us a goal.
 
FryattFox said:
Our XGc stats suggest that by simply signing a competent replacement for Schmeichel last summer, we would have comfortably stayed up.

Danny Ward had an average XGc of negative 0.34 per 90 mins, meaning every three matches played he cost us a goal.

Iversen wasn't much better with XGc of negative 0.24 per 90 mins, meaning every four matches played he cost us a goal.
Click to expand...
Unfair to read that much into Iversen’s numbers as we were playing shit and he saved us from some drubbings
If we’d started the season with Iversen in goal, I believe, the situation we ended up in would have been a fair bit different
 
H T B said:
Unfair to read that much into Iversen’s numbers as we were playing shit and he saved us from some drubbings
If we’d started the season with Iversen in goal, I believe, the situation we ended up in would have been a fair bit different
Click to expand...
The whole point of XGc and XG is that it's a (reasonably) objective number.

Iversen has been better than Ward and so yes, we would have been better off with him playing for the whole season, but neither were good enough and the goalkeeping situation was a key reason that we were relegated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1639
2Chelsea1735
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Bournemouth1728
6Aston Villa1728
7Manchester C  1727
8Newcastle1726
9Fulham1725
10Brighton1725
11Tottenham 1723
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1722
14West Ham1720
15Everton1616
16Palace1716
17Leicester1714
18Wolves1712
19Ipswich1712
20Southampton176

Latest posts

Back
Top