The Fish

Typical Americans, so uncouth.

I beg your fucking pardon? You shut your fucking trash mouth.

Nah, we can't both be.

It's the Club World Cup thing, right?

The chance isn't harder. The chance is the same. It's the executor of the chance that's different. You can tac on explanations why that chance wasn't taken and include pressure or lack of ability, but the chance is what the xG model is reporting. The model isn't there to explain why the chance was or wasn't taken. It's there to say that team A created more good opportunities to score than team B, but they didn't spend money on a striker so they're out of the Champions League. Player A has fuck all assists but has been creating really good chances for his team to score from, it's just that his teammates are useless. Player B is scoring more goals than you'd expect given the chances that come to him, if he's good he'll keep doing it, if he's just been lucky it'll regress to the mean. Team C has conceded the fewest goals so far, but that's due to their 'keeper pulling off world class saves, and profligacy from their opponents Not sure if they clock the speed of the pass (it's definitely doable and I'd argue that that's valuable information). They definitely record which foot (stronger or weaker) it comes to. Quick google and yes, they do consider the speed of the pass.

Well, because it averages out. The ability of Saka, the coaching he's had, the support he's had to manage pressure situations, the experience he's got of playing in high stakes games, versus the fatigue, the speed of the game, the weight of the pressure, the height of this particular stake. And the law of big numbers. That chance he missed was valued at 0.78xG, which means if that chance happened 1000 times, you'd expect the ball to hit the back of the net 780 times. This was just one of those 220 times in a thousand that it didn't. Let that chance fall to some clogger from Morecambe he's more likely to shank it that Saka is, but you'd still be in the stands saying "My nan could have finished that", because you know that if you watched 1,000 chances that were pretty much the same, the vast majority of them would be buried, regardless of who it fell to. We've all seen world class stars fuck up a relatively easy chance, and we've seen fucking clogger spaff one in against all odds. But because xG looks at thousands and thousands of data points it can ignore the ability of the player and look instead at the chance itself. It doesn't need to worry about the pressure of the stakes, or the BMI of the the player. It's the chance that matters. Not the competition, not the stadium, not the player... just the chance.

That's not what happens though. All they do is look at the chance (not the shot) and compare it to all the other chances that are sufficiently similar. e.g. a penalty. Of the thousands and thousands of penalties taken, how many end up in the back of the net? Works out to be around 76% of them. For less distinct instances automated video capture is used, plus some human input. They don't say "Ooooh I reckon we should add .002 because there was a crisp packet rustle in the second row. They just say what happened in that chance and the model says this is how often that chance ends up in a goal. Player 35yds out, on the volley, weaker foot, while under pressure is going to be fuck all xG. Player on the goal line, with control of the ball, under no pressure is going to be very high xG. Not because of what that chance sounds like or how it's interpreted, but because looking back at what has happened for those types of chances, this is how rarely or how often the ball ends up in the goal.

Not understanding it is and not caring is fine. Not understanding it and thinking it's useless is patently ridiculous behaviour.

I'm not sure of this year's accounts, but I know that last year their wage/turnover ratio was something like 90%, which is huge. They've sold a couple of players for big money, but they've shouldered at least some of the costs of some very high earners since the January window. I'm not sure how much of Rashford's £350k pw wage, but even at 50% he'd be one of their highest earners. Plus Asensio and Desasi... Aston Villa’s accounts explained: £86m loss, PSR problems to solve, player sales needed - The Athletic

It's about slipping in the right formula to get guaranteed results... Yup, I made a date rape joke about my own wife. Welcome to Toontastic, ya filthy lurkers.

Women can understand excel charts as well, you fucking misogynist.

I'm a happily married father of two. I have put aside my schweffing sword.

Buuuut you are now King of England.

It is outrageous around here. The trend of Uni lasses to wear 90s-lite outfits works almost like a todger time machine as well.

Villa fans will be saying roughly the same about us. They've got Bournemouth, Tottenham and Man Utd. Now, Bournemouth are playing really well this year as we've found out to our cost, as have Arsenal (6pts), Man City (3pts & FA Cup) and Nottingham Forest (4pts). And Villa are midtable for points won on the road. Tottenham are shit, there's no getting away from it. Buuuuuuuut... No.. I've got nothing. 16th placed team, pre-Europa League final (you'd assume), at home, and it's Spurs? That's more of a home banker that's ever been banked at home by a Banker Homeboy. Manchester United however... Villa have 5 wins against Manchester United since 1995. Bogey team.

I think this is correct: - Newc 63, max 72 - ⁠Villa 60, max 69 - ⁠Forest 61, max 70 - ⁠Chelsea 63, max 72 - ⁠But both can’t get max, and if Chelsea and Forest draw, max is 68 and 70 So: - 9 or 7 points = guaranteed top 5 - ⁠6 points of any kind means we are ahead of Villa due to GD - ⁠7 points of any kind we are ahead of Forest unless a 10 goal swing - ⁠beat Chelsea and another win = guaranteed top 5 as Chelsea and Forest cannot both then get 69 - ⁠beat Arsenal and Everton and lose to Chelsea it gets tricksy if everyone wins out. Would rely on Forest final game draw OR Chelsea win (to stay ahead of Forest) OR Forest win but we get better GD than Chelsea in last three games (to stay ahead of Chelsea), which is tough if they beat us. - ⁠draw to Chelsea and win another, need Villa to draw one no matter what happens. A Chelsea win at Forest means we are good. A draw and we are good assuming Forest don’t turn over big GD. A Forest win means we need them to draw another OR we better Chelsea GD. - ⁠less than 4 points and we need a lot of help As I say, I think this is right. In summary, - that point at Brighton was massive - ⁠our run of high scoring wins against ManU, Leic, Ips and Palace has been invaluable - ⁠Forest playing Chelsea is a huge help - ⁠beat Chelsea and we are pretty much good - ⁠draw to Chelsea and we are relying on Villa dropping points - ⁠lose to Chelsea and we are in the shit.

Like for like? Oh no Eddie, oh no no no.

You shop for Husky Children?

Depends, what's the price for a flight of real ales?

The fuck did I do to get dragged into this bullshit?

Can't be overstated how fucking outrageous it is that one of those two appalling sides are getting to play in Europe's Premier competition next season. They've been, by every measure, awful. Still rather Spurs won the whole thing though. The less money Rolling into Old Trafford, the more batshit decisions Sir Jim will make.