What do the stats say?

[Rock Fox]

It's been a wonderful decade hasn't it ? The literal opposite of the one that preceded it. We will remember it fondly.

GOAT for Leicester supporters

 

[Blue Maniac]

GOAT for Leicester supporters

A hundred times better than the 90s for me

 

[Willlow]

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.

Or the stats do show he has potential and you just talk a lot of bollocks…

 

[popillius]

Or the stats do show he has potential and you just talk a lot of bollocks…

I also have eyes.

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

He's ****ing awful.

 

[Willlow]

I also have eyes.

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

He's ****ing awful.

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…

 

[popillius]

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…

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.

 

[Volpone]

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.

Are we talking about Daka or Iheanacho or Vardy?

 

[Willlow]

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.

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…

 

[popillius]

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…

9 goals and 6 assists in two seasons. Mega stats.

He's pony.

End of story.

 

[Willlow]

9 goals and 6 assists in two seasons. Mega stats.

He's pony.

End of story.

it must be true if you’ve written end of story…

 

[popillius]

it must be true if you’ve written end of story…

I knew you'd come round.

 

[FryattFox]

 

[Brown Nose]

Updated.

 

[Brown Nose]

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.

 

[camberwell fox]

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.

Perez created more than Maddison, yes, that sounds right.

 

[Joe_Fox]

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.

Glad we finished 12th, that makes me feel much better.

 

[FryattFox]

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.

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.

 

[H T B]

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.

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

 

[FryattFox]

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

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.

 

[Brown Nose]

Just to cheer us up a bit more . . .