Statistical Domination

[littleyellowbirdie 2,507]

2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Or, the better you play, the less important luck is

No, because luck is just the way people who don't understand probabilities express stuff. 😉

[repman 634]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

This is very interesting - did you construct it yourself or is it taken from a source that I am unaware of?

I made it myself so to be fair it could be all wrong but it seems correct to me.

The data is from all the individual games pages here: https://fbref.com/en/squads/1c781004/Norwich-City-Stats

[hogesar 9,615]

Annoyingly no Stoke game graph produced from the same source so have left that out.

I'm not sure the graph tells us anything we didn't know apart from the fact that if you have a 1.52 xG you really ought to have scored, especially when the graph shows it wasn't from 30 shots outside the area. 

Both Pukki and Onel will be questioning how they didn't score, whilst Dowells limited appearance time did show that despite his flaws he creates chances.

[hogesar 9,615]

Another quick note, it's also not the first time we've created really good chances early on in a game and not taken them. You'll see from the 20th minute onwards we didn't create anything huge going into halftime. QPR didn't create any big chances after that either but you can "see" the lull that happened during the game in terms of creativity.

Another day we're certainly 1-0 up going into half time and the performance / result is matching what fans are after. It would be fair to argue Smith set us up correctly against them. The in-game changes are what probably left a little to be desired but the Dowell substitution worked in creating a goal-scoring chance as did bringing Onel on, who should have scored.

[repman 634]

Thought I'd bring back the 5 game xG/xGA average chart as we've gone back into positive territory after the Rotherham game. Despite being in the green our xGA average remains very high, 3 of our 5 worst performances this season in terms of xG conceded have been in these last 5 games. If we could maintain the gap like we did early on in the year I think we'd be fine, but when you consider the strength of opposition during that run it doesn't seem as strong.

 

 

 

 

[Nuff Said 5,088]

1 hour ago, repman said:

Thought I'd bring back the 5 game xG/xGA average chart as we've gone back into positive territory after the Rotherham game. Despite being in the green our xGA average remains very high, 3 of our 5 worst performances this season in terms of xG conceded have been in these last 5 games. If we could maintain the gap like we did early on in the year I think we'd be fine, but when you consider the strength of opposition during that run it doesn't seem as strong.

 

 

 

 

Is there a simple way of reflecting that in the numbers? A co-efficient (if that’s the right term) for the relative table position?

[repman 634]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Is there a simple way of reflecting that in the numbers? A co-efficient (if that’s the right term) for the relative table position?

I'm sure there is but it would be done by someone much smarter than I am, I was basing it off the league table roughly. Just from googling it quickly I found this table from pre season based off of bookies' odds. When you look at it 6 is Burnley, which got moved from mid September back to the end of October and 3 is West Brom, who obviously have been unexpectedly poor.

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

11 hours ago, repman said:

Thought I'd bring back the 5 game xG/xGA average chart as we've gone back into positive territory after the Rotherham game. Despite being in the green our xGA average remains very high, 3 of our 5 worst performances this season in terms of xG conceded have been in these last 5 games. If we could maintain the gap like we did early on in the year I think we'd be fine, but when you consider the strength of opposition during that run it doesn't seem as strong.

 

 

 

 

That's interesting.  I'd like to know the xG from yesterday, my perception is that we were better in chances created but not much better.

[repman 634]

8 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

That's interesting.  I'd like to know the xG from yesterday, my perception is that we were better in chances created but not much better.

The xG was pretty much exactly 2-1 to us. Both our goals being the highest individual chances.

[hogesar 9,615]

Frustratingly the Twitter account that produced the xG graphs has focussed solely on Leagues One and Two recently, so haven't had the latest graphs. Pulled from @experimental361 instead. 

You could argue we were a little lucky to win at Rotherham and a little unlucky to lose to Boro.

[Midlands Yellow 3,924]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Frustratingly the Twitter account that produced the xG graphs has focussed solely on Leagues One and Two recently, so haven't had the latest graphs. Pulled from @experimental361 instead. 

You could argue we were a little lucky to win at Rotherham and a little unlucky to lose to Boro.

Watching both matches on a superb free stream service I thought both results were very fair. 

[hogesar 9,615]

17 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Watching both matches on a superb free stream service I thought both results were very fair. 

Walking out of the stadium after Boro I thought the rsult was fair, but then that's always going to be biased because you've just watched your team concede a last minute winner during a rubbish 20 minute spell.

On reflection, we were a little unlucky in that we created better chances than both their goals but didn't take them, the key one being about 30 minutes into the game when we really should have made it two.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Watching both matches on a superb free stream service I thought both results were very fair. 

Which free stream service - I can't find a decent one atm?

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

On 09/12/2022 at 11:10, hogesar said:

Walking out of the stadium after Boro I thought the rsult was fair, but then that's always going to be biased because you've just watched your team concede a last minute winner during a rubbish 20 minute spell.

On reflection, we were a little unlucky in that we created better chances than both their goals but didn't take them, the key one being about 30 minutes into the game when we really should have made it two.

Correction. Rubbish 60 minute spell 

Good 20 minute spell from us 

[Petriix 2,834]

On 09/12/2022 at 11:10, hogesar said:

Walking out of the stadium after Boro I thought the rsult was fair, but then that's always going to be biased because you've just watched your team concede a last minute winner during a rubbish 20 minute spell.

On reflection, we were a little unlucky in that we created better chances than both their goals but didn't take them, the key one being about 30 minutes into the game when we really should have made it two.

I've been thinking about this over the World Cup break. Luck. People have talked about us not taking our chances and failing to put games to bed during our periods of dominance.*

The overriding conclusion I've come to is that you make your own luck. I don't think our players are lacking skill, just belief and confidence. They're playing with fear and that detracts from their performance. That has to come down to the management and coaching. 

The biggest factor in confidence is feeling free to take risks without fear of failure. I believe the way Smith chops and changes the team and tactics has a massive impact on this. He doesn't inspire confidence in his team and that has an impact in those crucial moments on the pitch.

Let's see what this 'different animal' looks like. I strongly suspect it will turn out to be the same beast as before, but let's see if we can start taking those chances. 

*No one, not Man City or Barcelona, dominates for the full 90 minutes. It always has been about the moments of magic. Periods of dominance simply lead to a greater chance of those moments happening at the right end of the pitch. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

If you don't score when you're on top the chances are you'll regret it.

[hogesar 9,615]

So, Swansea xG stats suggest we "got away with one"

Graph shows a little more. We scored from our only half decent chance. Despite the huge disparity in xG, Swansea only created one chance that was better than our goal-scoring chance, which is a positive. Combination of poor final third play from Swansea and good defending / reading of play from us?

[hogesar 9,615]

20 hours ago, hogesar said:

So, Swansea xG stats suggest we "got away with one"

Graph shows a little more. We scored from our only half decent chance. Despite the huge disparity in xG, Swansea only created one chance that was better than our goal-scoring chance, which is a positive. Combination of poor final third play from Swansea and good defending / reading of play from us?

A uhh, negative would be that, after glancing through previous games, this is Swansea's highest accumulated xG in a game since they played Hull on 17th September (They won 3-0 with an xG of 2.7). Unless I've missed a game somewhere.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

20 hours ago, hogesar said:

So, Swansea xG stats suggest we "got away with one"

Graph shows a little more. We scored from our only half decent chance. Despite the huge disparity in xG, Swansea only created one chance that was better than our goal-scoring chance, which is a positive. Combination of poor final third play from Swansea and good defending / reading of play from us?

Interesting & thanks for posting hog, I wonder if DS will be flagging this in press conferences 😂 ?

 

For me the purpose of xG is to try to find out how the team really performed, allowing for the fact that any given chance to score may, or may not, go in during any particular game so the scoreline can be very misleading.

 

On our side, we clearly created very little after scoring very early.  Being charitable, maybe we wouldn't have sat back so much without an early goal?  But, all those small % chances for them will normally catch you out in the end, and this definitely shows we were fortunate to get a win, or potentially even a point from that game.

it also supports all the negative comments from those who watched and were expected them to score for most of the game.

 

So, looks like no change whatsoever after the month off ?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

It was a really poor performance and a jammy win - but we'll take that on our first game back after a long break, if it means we are building for better under Smith.

Question is, are we? Saturday's game certainly did not ignite any new confidence for me. I guess we defended pretty well but the total lack of ability to impose ourselves after the goal was far more concerning.

In many ways I would have taken much more positivity from a draw had we dominated the game for long spells (i.e. not just the classic 20 minutes) and just got super unlucky, but we didn't even manage a 20 minute good spell for this game. In fact it was basically only a one minute good spell up to the goal, with the odd foray on the break after that.

Its starting to feel like these fortunate wins - see also Stoke at home which probably our worst home performance of the season until we (somehow) got a 2 goal lead and the chains loosened off - are doing little more than kicking the can down the road a little further and delaying the inevitable.

I have a feeling these 'different animal' comments are going to get quoted a lot on this forum over the coming weeks... I would welcome seeing one soon!

[hogesar 9,615]

1 minute ago, It's Character Forming said:

Interesting & thanks for posting hog, I wonder if DS will be flagging this in press conferences 😂 ?

 

For me the purpose of xG is to try to find out how the team really performed, allowing for the fact that any given chance to score may, or may not, go in during any particular game so the scoreline can be very misleading.

 

On our side, we clearly created very little after scoring very early.  Being charitable, maybe we wouldn't have sat back so much without an early goal?  But, all those small % chances for them will normally catch you out in the end, and this definitely shows we were fortunate to get a win, or potentially even a point from that game.

it also supports all the negative comments from those who watched and were expected them to score for most of the game.

 

So, looks like no change whatsoever after the month off ?

If we use xG to find out how a team really performed, then you'd argue we've come back worse after the month off. Despite the emotional reaction to the Boro game we didn't deserve to lose it. Our previous two games we had a higher xG than our opponent, this game we had a significantly worse one. 

But yes, you have a perfectly valid point about the way a game plays out depending on in-match situations. I think scoring away from home so early on in the first game in a month sets a certain mentality. And I have no problem with us then playing on the counter and sucking up pressure, it just appears that we didn't manage to counter well enough to relieve pressure (I didn't see the entire game).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,507]

What I'm now interested in is how xGa is calculated? Is this based on the cumulative xG of all the teams you play?

[repman 634]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What I'm now interested in is how xGa is calculated? Is this based on the cumulative xG of all the teams you play?

I'm guessing you're looking at an xG league table?

Easiest way of looking at it is that if xG is every shot you take, then it every shot you concede will give you your xGA.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

6 hours ago, hogesar said:

If we use xG to find out how a team really performed, then you'd argue we've come back worse after the month off. Despite the emotional reaction to the Boro game we didn't deserve to lose it. Our previous two games we had a higher xG than our opponent, this game we had a significantly worse one. 

But yes, you have a perfectly valid point about the way a game plays out depending on in-match situations. I think scoring away from home so early on in the first game in a month sets a certain mentality. And I have no problem with us then playing on the counter and sucking up pressure, it just appears that we didn't manage to counter well enough to relieve pressure (I didn't see the entire game).

I agree and the first game back is always going to be a bit strange, and too soon to draw any final conclusions.

 

But the bit I've highlighted for is definitely the point of xG (for me at least).  Otherwise why bother with it?  We already have plenty of stats which tell you very little e.g. possession % = tells you who had the ball for most of the game, # corners = tells you how many corners each team had - neither of these say how well a team has played, as we've seen recently e.g. with Spain you can have the ball for most of a game and still play badly.

 

My fear when the board stuck with DS for the World Cup break was that we'd come back and find nothing much had changed.  So far, I'm worried that may turn out to be right.

 

I am hoping in the background the Board have been weighing up alternative options and DS now has a string of upcoming games to show some real progress, otherwise we need to look at getting someone else in place during the January window when there's at least some scope to change around some of the squad (and at least a good chunk of the season to go for promotion).

[repman 634]

Back again with the 5 game rolling xG/xGa average. I hadn't done it since before the Boro game so only 2 new games in the graph. Despite the xG being basically even in that and us being worse off vs Swansea the difference between the 2 averages has improved. However, this is more down to the fact that both the Sheff U and Burnley games have dropped out the average where we got beaten comprehensively in the xG. Although it is good to see us back in the green so to speak, it's still a smaller margin than would be comfortable, the pretty consistent gap we had through the start of the season would be ideal but it continues to look more like a favourable run of games than a clear sign of us being a top side at this level. I'll put something in the next time I update it to mark the last game (post World Cup break) to see if there's any signs of improvement, not off to the best start if so though! 

 

[king canary 7,577]

On 11/12/2022 at 12:55, hogesar said:

So, Swansea xG stats suggest we "got away with one"

Graph shows a little more. We scored from our only half decent chance. Despite the huge disparity in xG, Swansea only created one chance that was better than our goal-scoring chance, which is a positive. Combination of poor final third play from Swansea and good defending / reading of play from us?

Did we really not have a shot in the second half?

Also I'm confused how Pukki has an xG of 0.3 but the chance the goal came from is showing 0.4 on the graph?

[repman 634]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Did we really not have a shot in the second half?

Also I'm confused how Pukki has an xG of 0.3 but the chance the goal came from is showing 0.4 on the graph?

I think the graph shows more than one shot as an attack, for Pukki's goal the first header from McLean was saved and then he tapped in the rebound. A similar thing happened for Swansea's first measure on the graph.

[hogesar 9,615]

14 hours ago, repman said:

I think the graph shows more than one shot as an attack, for Pukki's goal the first header from McLean was saved and then he tapped in the rebound. A similar thing happened for Swansea's first measure on the graph.

Yes 😀

[repman 634]

After reading a post somewhere comparing goals scored and against in our previous promotion seasons I thought I'd make a table showing the xG differential for the 2 previous title winning years alongside this year. I raised the average to 10 games to keep it a bit more steady but I think it still says plenty. After Swansea it's the first time in any of the seasons our xGa has been worse over 10 games than our xG, if it was 5 games there would've been occasions from every season however. I think you can see the points in both 18/19 and 20/21 where we really started to take off as a side. Fingers crossed we have a similar moment to come this season.

 

 

[hogesar 9,615]

Thanks @repman, helps to see it in graph format too!