Experimental 361 | Page 4 | Vital Football

Experimental 361

based on the charts on this thread, we seem to score from more difficult chances. and don't create many 'easy' chances. when we do create easy chances - we miss them.
 
nlondonimp said:
based on the charts on this thread, we seem to score from more difficult chances. and don't create many 'easy' chances. when we do create easy chances - we miss them.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty accurate to me, however we came to that conclusion!!
 
Skip155 said:
The main takeaway from this is probably we don’t have many players averaging 1+ shot per match https://experimental361.com/2018/11/09/attack-breakdowns-league-2-9-nov-2018/
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what it means? It means we don't have any players with an expected 100% chance of scoring during the game?

Also looks like we created only 1 chance of any sort from the 50th minute to the end of the match, which we duly converted. Looks like that chance had an XG of 0.4 I know lower league players are rated with lower XG due to their perceived lower ability but are they really saying Gordon is only going to stick that chance away 4 times out of 10? This isn't about individual player ratings (since I think they are well off whack anyway) but each chance is supposed to be rated for it's likelihood. I'm pretty sure a penno is 0.8 on most models, so I don't really know how they get to 0.4 for that chance of Gordon's, it was at least as easy as a penno surely?

Edit: Question answered:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1051368060676960256
Looks like the data comes from some sort of analysis of text output of a match report stream, that is not really convincing data for me to think this stuff is anyway closely analysed.

Edit again: This looks like what he may have used:
Goal!
Posted at72'
Goal! Lincoln City 2, Forest Green Rovers 1. Kellan Gordon (Lincoln City) right footed shot from very close range to the bottom right corner. Assisted by Shay McCartan.
 
Last edited:
Sincilbanks said:
I don't think that's what it means? It means we don't have any players with an expected 100% chance of scoring during the game?

Also looks like we created only 1 chance of any sort from the 50th minute to the end of the match, which we duly converted. Looks like that chance had an XG of 0.4 I know lower league players are rated with lower XG due to their perceived lower ability but are they really saying Gordon is only going to stick that chance away 4 times out of 10? This isn't about individual player ratings (since I think they are well off whack anyway) but each chance is supposed to be rated for it's likelihood. I'm pretty sure a penno is 0.8 on most models, so I don't really know how they get to 0.4 for that chance of Gordon's, it was at least as easy as a penno surely?

Edit: Question answered:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1051368060676960256
Looks like the data comes from some sort of analysis of text output of a match report stream, that is not really convincing data for me to think this stuff is anyway closely analysed.

Edit again: This looks like what he may have used:
Goal!
Posted at72'
Goal! Lincoln City 2, Forest Green Rovers 1. Kellan Gordon (Lincoln City) right footed shot from very close range to the bottom right corner. Assisted by Shay McCartan.
Click to expand...

The post is year to date attacking effectiveness. This is our chart but it’s worth looking at compared to the others at the link together with the explanation. 374D5DD2-31D1-4196-9763-CBBEC6DB75EA.png
 
just as last season, first half we are not so hot. although the away first half has improved, the home first half has got worse:
home
w 2 d 6 L 2 gf 8 ga 8

away
w 3 d 4 L 2 gf 6 ga 2

total
w 5 d 10 L 4 gf 14 ga 10

8 goals conceded in the first half at home. 450mins.
9 goals conceded in all of the rest of the time. 1260 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.