Recent Posts
Ah well, it's not for everybody. And you'll always have the Fairs Cup.Absolutely. If Arsenal fans think that all they need to do is to turn up to win to the European Cup (Champions League to the Premier League generation), then they are a deluded lot. The elites know how to win this. The pretenders not so much
I get you, I think we should offer him a two year extension, saying that a Saudi Arabian team will probably still bid high for a washed up Salah like they did a washed up Fabinho so I don’t understand everyone’s panic about getting a big fee for him.
Next season;s kits.The Home reminds me of a cheap, market knock-off that you might find being sold in Turkey or Thailand.
Cool - I'd happily buy Isak too.Sign me up for buying Isak too.
(I'd buy forwards with high npxg every window if I could)
Yes. I wouldn't sell Nunez to buy Isak. I'd happily buy Isak and play Nunez as a wide striker though.
From what I've seen of Isak I don't think he's as creative as Nunez, we don't disagree there. He definitely doesn't work as hard, but his touch is pretty immaculate. Either way i's probable that in a more positive team, those xA numbers would improve. I like Gordon, and I like Barnes when he's fit, but otherwise he's not had much support around him.He's not as creative no, in fact his rate of xA is pretty stable from Sociedad to Newcastle, likewise with Nunez from Benfica to Liverpool.
My gripe would be that if Isak shot more often, those xG numbers go up, and you rate him more even if he starts underperforming against that xG. Seems simplistic to say the least.
Outside of the immense schadenfreude at these twats being eliminated, I don't believe that a couple of extra games would have had any negative effect on their League performance - they are "conditioned"* to play two games a week at peak efficiency (even in extra time they were barely sweating last night while Real Madrid were dead in the water) - the optimist in me hopes that having one less game per week will impact them negatively because it will allow them more time to stew and overthink things (including Pep) - twats
* whether its actual legit conditioning or Lance Armstrong style conditioning we'll probably never know
Sorry if im missing something in the specific vernacular, but is xA not a metric?
What i'm attempting to do is dig in to the details around a topline statistic like an assist. Something we all understand. But something if you think about it, as many have, can easily understand is quite a frail statistical output to assess a player by. So we move on to xA, something which provides more context to an assist, or what degree a pass could/should have been an assist and thats good! Its an improvement. But some will then check out at that point, and cease looking for improvement or questioning the validity of xA. Its a better measurement than just 'a' but that doesnt mean its complete and it doesnt mean we take it at face value.
So as someone who clearly has more knowledge of xA im asking you, what sort of completeness it brings to the table. You seem to rate it as a measurement (metric?) but how often if at all are you questioning it or looking for flaws in it? Seems like people within this world should and probably are constantly critiquing and looking for flaws in data rather than just holding them up as tablets as decreed from a greater power which relays an ultimate truth.
Skepticism is healthy when it comes to analysis, i know it may come across as me being snarky and I am to a certain extent, and like i say im sure these discussions have been had in great detail by many people much smarter than I but I'm not on an analytics forum. Im here to read aboiut darwin. So when I see data being used a means to understand his performance, is it not fair and right that the data itself is scrutinised somewhat?
