****The Official Lapps Match Thread v Wolves (PL/A) *****

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

20% isn't actually bad by most standards.

Pukki this season has an xg of 11.33 and has scored 11 goals suggesting he's basically performing where he should be with regards to finishing. 

Yes, xg again, that flawless guide…..imo it stands up to such little scrutiny as to be irrelevant.   So it was fine he missed two fantastic chances today, because xg says it’s ok?  That’s just odd.

I guess we wait and see which PL sides are linked with him in close season.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Our goal today was a total solo effort

Pukki has had no support from a horrendous midfield who were abject again today

the minute we had Idah helping him in an advanced position Pukki was a different player. 

[king canary 7,605]

6 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Yes, xg again, that flawless guide…..imo it stands up to such little scrutiny as to be irrelevant.   So it was fine he missed two fantastic chances today, because xg says it’s ok?  That’s just odd.

Nobody said it was fine but XG at least tries to quantify how good a chance actually was. Supporters in the stand will often massively over rate chances that actually maybe get scored one in every 5 times.

As someone else mentioned, chance conversion isn't all that as it treats all chances as equal. Xg isn't perfect but it's better than that.

[canarybubbles 1,915]

13 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Yes, xg again, that flawless guide…..

I know I implicitly criticised your Pukki percentage for being intuitive, but I'm not a big fan of xg either, or any of these attempts to reduce football to data and statistics. I'm much happier to live in a world where we rate a player differently (you say 20%, I say 33%), but agree to disagree rather than dredge up pseudo-scientific figures to support our argument. I'm not saying these masses of data are necessarily worthless, but when technophiles treat them as if they are undisputed fact, I think they're giving xg and similar stats a role beyond what they should have. 

EDIT: 'Pseudo-scientific' isn't fair. Maybe I should have said 'quasi-scientific' because the people who compile them are doing the best they can. It's just that the significance of the stats is often over-rated.

Edited May 15, 2022 by canarybubbles

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

I do think it odd how people seem so keen to belittle so many players - insert any of about ten names here - but seem to rail when the ones they like come in for some mild criticism.  
The point is that throughout the team we’ve not been good enough this season, Pukki is part of that team and can’t be above criticism. I’m sure he’d say he should have converted more this season…not that it would have prevented our relegation. 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[king canary 7,605]

5 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

I know I implicitly criticised your Pukki percentage for being intuitive, but I'm not a big fan of xg either, or any of these attempts to reduce football to data and statistics. I'm much happier to live in a world where we rate a player differently (you say 20%, I say 33%), but agree to disagree rather than dredge up pseudo-scientific figures to support our argument. I'm not saying these masses of data are necessarily worthless, but when technophiles treat them as if they are undisputed fact, I think they're giving xg and similar stats a role beyond what they should have. 

EDIT: 'Pseudo-scientific' isn't fair. Maybe I should have said 'quasi-scientific' because the people who compile them are doing the best they can. It's just that the significance of the stats is often over-rated.

It certainly isn't the be all and end and I do agree the desire to reduce everything to numbers can take some of the joy out.

However, clubs do look at and use stats like these and there is generally quite a lot of complex modelling and maths that goes into it, so I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

[Jambomo 215]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

It certainly isn't the be all and end and I do agree the desire to reduce everything to numbers can take some of the joy out.

However, clubs do look at and use stats like these and there is generally quite a lot of complex modelling and maths that goes into it, so I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

I work in an area where people are measured with metrics in a not too dissimilar way. The one thing we constantly try to drive is that stats like XG should never be looked at in isolation but along with qualitative evaluation as well.

Actually looking at the quality of what is measured  is important because just looking at stats alone can be misleading. There was one game, Villa v Spurs, where Villa’s XG was a lot more than Spurs but Spurs won the game 4-0. Stats alone can lead you to make a lot of incorrect assumptions and bad judgements. 

So whilst the clubs will use these stats, they will almost certainly be looked at alongside other evidence as well. Never on their own.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Jambomo

[canarybubbles 1,915]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

It certainly isn't the be all and end and I do agree the desire to reduce everything to numbers can take some of the joy out.

However, clubs do look at and use stats like these and there is generally quite a lot of complex modelling and maths that goes into it, so I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

Agreed. The problem isn't with the modellers or the mathematicians - it's with attempts to make these things more than useful tools.

[king canary 7,605]

2 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

I work in an area where people are measured with metrics in a not too dissimilar way. The one thing we constantly try to drive is that stats like XG should never be looked at in isolation but along with qualitative evaluation as well.

Actually looking at the quality of what is measured  is important because just looking at stats alone can be misleading. There was one game, Villa v Spurs, where Villa’s XG was a lot more than Spurs but Spurs won the game 4-0. Stats alone can lead you to make a lot of incorrect assumptions and bad judgements. 

So whilst the clubs will use these stats, they will almost certainly be looked at alongside other evidence as well. Never on their own.

Yes totally agree. There were a couple of posters who were on here awhile ago who felt they could give comment on how well/poorly a player played just by looking at heat maps/stats post game but not actually watching it. Totally disagreed with them.

The context part is often what people miss about our scouting too- people hear data driven recruitment and assume we sign players based solely on stats, rather than using the stats as a jumping off point to decide who we want to scout in more depth.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

6 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

I work in an area where people are measured with metrics in a not too dissimilar way. The one thing we constantly try to drive is that stats like XG should never be looked at in isolation but along with qualitative evaluation as well.

Actually looking at the quality of what is measured  is important because just looking at stats alone can be misleading. There was one game, Villa v Spurs, where Villa’s XG was a lot more than Spurs but Spurs won the game 4-0. Stats alone can lead you to make a lot of incorrect assumptions and bad judgements. 

So whilst the clubs will use these stats, they will almost certainly be looked at alongside other evidence as well. Never on their own.

Was that Villa game where they dominated the first half and then Son put on a finishing clinic with a few hard chances?

[king canary 7,605]

4 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Agreed. The problem isn't with the modellers or the mathematicians - it's with attempts to make these things more than useful tools.

I think fans are getting more statistically literate which is good. I personally think XG gives a bit better picture of a game than when people used to conclude whoever had more shots or shots on target was the better team but it still isn't as simple as looking at one number to conclude who was better.

[canarydan23 4,060]

33 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I do think it odd how people seem so keen to belittle so many players - insert any of about ten names here - but seem to rail when the ones they like come in for some mild criticism.  

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with people's preferences. More the idea that a player who has twice scored 11 Premier League goals for a team that finished (or will finish) bottom on the 6th and 7th worst Premier League points hauls in the competition's history, is highlighted for criticism and the need to improve.

What Pukki has achieved in two of the worst team's in Premier League history is remarkable.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with people's preferences. More the idea that a player who has twice scored 11 Premier League goals for a team that finished (or will finish) bottom on the 6th and 7th worst Premier League points hauls in the competition's history, is highlighted for criticism and the need to improve.

What Pukki has achieved in two of the worst team's in Premier League history is remarkable.

Well that’s ok then. He’s completely blameless and I presume a total shoo-in for POTS. I’m glad you are here to correct my opinion. 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[king canary 7,605]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well that’s ok then. He’s completely blameless and I presume a total shoo-in for POTS. I’m glad you are here to correct my opinion. 

Its starting to appear that you just don't like being disagreed with.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

Its starting to appear that you just don't like being disagreed with.

Absolutely not - I just believe that no player is above criticism, rather than there just being a series of the usual scapegoats.  My opinion is that it is a team game and they could and should all have done better this season - I don’t think that’s particularly contentious when you look at the league table.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Ian 1,129]

18 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Absolutely not - I just believe that no player is above criticism, rather than there just being a series of the usual scapegoats.  My opinion is that it is a team game and they could and should all have done better this season - I don’t think that’s particularly contentious when you look at the league table.

Question: have you compared Pukki's conversion rate in terms of shots and chances amongst his peers this season?

Because my feeling is that this he has more than held his own against even the best in this league.

If we had a squad of players as good at doing their jobs as Pukki we would not be anywhere near the bottom three.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Ian

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

23 minutes ago, Ian said:

Question: have you compared Pukki's conversion rate in terms of shots and chances amongst his peers this season?

Because my feeling is that this he has more than held his own against even the best in this league.

If we had a squad of players as good at doing their jobs as Pukki we would not be anywhere near the bottom three.

…so when Pukki missed his two presentable chances today, you thought “that’s ok, he’s comparable to his peers”?  That’s an interesting take and I definitely didn’t see many comments to that effect.

But I think you (and others) have rather misunderstood my point - that it seems fine to scapegoat the usual suspects (Normann, Gilmour, anyone on loan, etc) but that no one is totally blameless.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[hogesar 9,667]

4 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

…so when Pukki missed his two presentable chances today, you thought “that’s ok, he’s comparable to his peers”?  That’s an interesting take and I definitely didn’t see many comments to that effect.

But I think you (and others) have rather misunderstood my point - that it seems fine to scapegoat the usual suspects (Normann, Gilmour, anyone on loan, etc) but that no one is totally blameless.

I think your general point has validity. To stay up as a newly promoted club who will generally create less chances you ideally want a striker who will outperform his xG stat. Unfortunately they're very rare and expensive.

Also, it overlooks the amount of chances Pukki gets because of Pukki himself. His movement is up there with the best strikers in the league. He gives our limited midfield easy options to find him and he has the individual ability to take snapshots early, twist a defender etc. We are incredibly lucky to have him.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well that’s ok then. He’s completely blameless and I presume a total shoo-in for POTS. I’m glad you are here to correct my opinion. 

To be fair, I can't think of anybody else to vote for, it's going to have to be him or Hanley.

[Greavsy 2,413]

8 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

To be fair, I can't think of anybody else to vote for, it's going to have to be him or Hanley.

Voting is closed now, closed last Thursday, so you've missed your chance. 

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

10 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Voting is closed now, closed last Thursday, so you've missed your chance. 

I assumed it’d be Hanley but don’t think I’ve ever voted for the winner!

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well that’s ok then. He’s completely blameless and I presume a total shoo-in for POTS. I’m glad you are here to correct my opinion. 

Yes, he probably is a shoo in for POTS. Weird that considering he misses loads and needs to improve.

Completely blameless is a stretch, but if you are apportioning blame, of all the regulars this season, Pukki gets the least.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Absolutely not - I just believe that no player is above criticism, rather than there just being a series of the usual scapegoats.  My opinion is that it is a team game and they could and should all have done better this season - I don’t think that’s particularly contentious when you look at the league table.

But we're only allowed to criticise the one's who have actually done OK this season, criticise the **** ones and it's scapegoating. I'll bear that in mind 👍

[Jambomo 215]

1 hour ago, Tetteys Jig said:

Was that Villa game where they dominated the first half and then Son put on a finishing clinic with a few hard chances?

Yes it was.

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

…so when Pukki missed his two presentable chances today, you thought “that’s ok, he’s comparable to his peers”?  That’s an interesting take and I definitely didn’t see many comments to that effect.

But I think you (and others) have rather misunderstood my point - that it seems fine to scapegoat the usual suspects (Normann, Gilmour, anyone on loan, etc) but that no one is totally blameless.

I don't think he is immune to criticism, but he is one of the very few players who has performed at a level, and with the quality, you would expect of a top-tier player.

My point about comparing him to his peers is just that; every striker misses presentable chances, just like every other player in the division makes poor errors at times. The difference is, better teams aren't shipping an average of 2 goals every single game; I suggest Pukki's performances haven't born too much responsibility for that.

If your expectations are that Pukki should have scored more goals given the chances and service he has actually been given over the course of the season, I would suggest they are wholly unrealistic.

Could he have done better this season? Probably. Has he performed below expectations? Definitely not IMO.

Does any of that make him immune to criticism? Of course not, but if more players had been close to his level this season I very much doubt we would be finishing on less than 25 points. Certainly in credit at this club, particularly factoring in the financials.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Ian

[ridgeman 131]

I thought Chiquinho changed the game when he came on and to think he cost £3 million according to the reporter and we allegedly paid 3 times that for Tzolis sums up our recruitment.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Yes, he probably is a shoo in for POTS. Weird that considering he misses loads and needs to improve.

Completely blameless is a stretch, but if you are apportioning blame, of all the regulars this season, Pukki gets the least.

I think there can be a lack of appreciation from fans that striker is the hardest position on the pitch to be good at, other than perhaps keeper, and it's primarily mental. 

If McLean skies one from 10 yards he will just think "not going to be doing that again for a couple of weeks". What Branston perhaps doesn't fully appreciate is that being a able to scuff a clear chance but then have the mental fortitude to bury the next one is exactly what makes strikers a unique breed and Pukki so good. 

I've seen Maupey, Antonio and Toney have complete stinkers but then pop up with a goal this season. Unrealistic to expect Pukki not to fluff his lines, a striker that seldom gets things wrong is essentially an elite striker, a Van Persie, or an Aguero, or a Kane. And if we had a player of that level.... we'd have had him for just the 1 year... in much the same way that Swansea had Llorente for 1 year before it quickly became apparent that he still had the ability and consistency to be a top 4 squad player.

Edited May 15, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[chicken 2,624]

Another couple of factors to consider, one that adds to the Pukki discussion, the other just seems to have silently gone by, though I can understand why.

Pukki now has as many goals this season as he did two seasons ago, or the last time we were in the premier league. Many people consider this team to be vastly inferior to that side (though I don't agree to vastly), so for him to score the same number of goals with a game to go and being two years older and now two years the wrong side of 30. Surely a sign of quality if nothing else.

As a caveat to that, this side, which tends to be seen as inferior to that of the 2019-20 season has silently clocked up one more point with a game to go.

Personally, I don't think a single point is here nor there. It's not enough to suggest any real change but it does suggest that both squads are actually as good as each other, just in different ways, or the squad last time out, woefully underperformed, which I also don't subscribe to.

[chicken 2,624]

2 hours ago, ridgeman said:

I thought Chiquinho changed the game when he came on and to think he cost £3 million according to the reporter and we allegedly paid 3 times that for Tzolis sums up our recruitment.

We really do need to forget about the transfer fees themselves. It's only ever part of the story, or package.

For example, when Villa signed McCormack it was largely reported that the complete package for signing him was at least £20m. £12.5m in transfer fee. The other £7.5m+ were wages and bonuses etc.

On top of that, Wolves have a very friendly, close working relationship with a super agent. Some of the signings they have made would not have been possible without him on side.

[Mason 47 1,379]

In fairness to Teemu he's looked shattered from the start in the last 2 games. I think Pukki buries a few of those chances in a confident gw6, as opposed to an already-relegated, no-striking-backup-since-January gw37.