Are you actually suggesting that the reason we played well in the first half both at Lincoln and again yesterday at Wigan but then put in very poor second half performances in each game is in some way Covid-related?plymade":v1w860zy said:
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Brief Synopsis (Sponsored by Bromleigh House)
- Thread starter Dreamgreen
- Start date
moles40":2t62l1hk said:
Is there a prize for most deluded post of the day? You should be a stand up comedian mate.
Nobby":2n6jxqrz said:moles40":2n6jxqrz said:
Thought i'd nibble at this, and expand slightly. Personally, I think you are too optimistic. I don't think we are good enough defensively to be promotion contenders. Although unlike some, I do not fear we'll be down the bottom. I think a top half finish is achievable.
Anyway, for some context i thought i'd have a quick look at your statement of "Once we start taking our chances in games then this league better watch out." Mainly for my own curiosity more than anything. Statements like this are the exact reason "Expected Goals" exists. I'm a believer in stats and think xG gives you a good indication of how a team may fare over a period of time. xG calculates the probability of scoring based on the chance created. So the more clear cut/central/closer the chance is, the higher the XG is. Pretty simple. So far this season our results based on xG should be:
Wigan 0.9 - 2.1 Argyle
Lincoln 2.7 - 0.5 Argyle
Argyle 1.6 - 1.2 Northampton
Argyle 1.6 - 0.7 Burton
Hull 1.1 - 1.1 Argyle
Argyle 1.4 - 0.4 Shrewsbury
Wimbledon 2.2 - 2.7 Argyle
Argyle 1.1 - 1.4 Blackpool
To explain how this works, if the xG is within 0.3 of one another, the match is consider a draw. If more than that it suggests one the team with the higher should have won (basically, round to nearest whole). Whilst I can see the limitations of XG, it shows that barring the Lincoln game, we've been very competitive in every game we've played in and created enough to win most.
Outperforming your XG would be a sign that you are very clinical, but don't create many chances. Underperfoming would suggest we create good chances but don't take them. If these patterns continue over a season, the former will eventually stop, the latter will generally catchup. A good example would be Solksjaer's first few months at Man Utd or Emery's first few months at Arsenal. In both circumstances, the teams were outperforming there xG either through outrageous finishing from them, or bad finishing from the opposition. The following season United were atrocious for the first six months and Emery was sacked before Christmas following a poor end and start to the new season. The results started to match the performances.
Here's how the L1 table would look so far if teams took there chances:
Paints a frustrating picture, but shows that we are doing well from box-to-box. We had the issue last year and Hardie and Jephcott came in in January and starting scoring which made the difference. Our current circumstances are similar.
Anyway, I know some don't believe in stats, some think xG is nonsense... "you win games on goals not expected goals" bla bla bla... but just a little bit of data behind the performances giving food for thought (data the club probably looks at).
Interesting Nobby. I certainly don't remember us creating any chances v Hull though do you? also lets look at some of the goals scored. Bad defensive mistake yesterday. Bad keeping error v Northampton and Burton. Offside goal v Burton. Guess thats not taking into account?
I thought I would check how we are doing this season compared to last. After 8 games (2020-2021 season first - 2019-2020 season second).
The playing record is
2020-2021 P8 W3 D3 L2 F12 A11 Pts 12 (9th position)
2019-2020 P8 W3 D2 L3 F12 A9 Pts 11 (11th position)
Argyle: (2020-2021 v 2019-2020)
Shots on goal: 108 v 122
Shots on target: 37 v 38
Goals scored: 12 v 12
Av. shots on target per game: 4.625 v 4.75
Opposition: (2020-2021 v 2019-2020)
Shots on goal: 114 v 115
Shots on target: 38 v 46
Goals scored: 11 v 9
Av. shots per game: 4.75 v 5.75
The conclusion is that we have a remarkably similar record to the same time last season. I am sure manty of the comments posted at the time would have been remarkably similar too. One thing last season proved is that despite the doubters the 3-5-2 system brought the Management Team two promotions in a row. I think the Management Team set up and data analysis is even better this season than last as the recruitment has proven - Fornah and Watts, in particular would have been off most people's radar. Not only that there is some evidence that Lowe is being flexible tactically - Cooper going long or wide rather than short, wing backs swapping sides, Mayor in a free role, right and left centre backs overlapping (as per Sheffield United), varied attacking permutations and the rotation of the squad to suit the game plan against differing opponents. All this whilst managing outbreaks of COVID-19 within the squad that has imposed untimely disciplines
Ryan Lowe repeatedly makes reference to the work on the training ground and the fitness and health management of the players. Like last season that will pay dividends over time, as we got stronger as the season progressed towards the business end of the season culminating in two splendid performances at home in our last two games which not only sealed our promotion but inspired belief we were good enough to win the League.
The playing record is
2020-2021 P8 W3 D3 L2 F12 A11 Pts 12 (9th position)
2019-2020 P8 W3 D2 L3 F12 A9 Pts 11 (11th position)
Argyle: (2020-2021 v 2019-2020)
Shots on goal: 108 v 122
Shots on target: 37 v 38
Goals scored: 12 v 12
Av. shots on target per game: 4.625 v 4.75
Opposition: (2020-2021 v 2019-2020)
Shots on goal: 114 v 115
Shots on target: 38 v 46
Goals scored: 11 v 9
Av. shots per game: 4.75 v 5.75
The conclusion is that we have a remarkably similar record to the same time last season. I am sure manty of the comments posted at the time would have been remarkably similar too. One thing last season proved is that despite the doubters the 3-5-2 system brought the Management Team two promotions in a row. I think the Management Team set up and data analysis is even better this season than last as the recruitment has proven - Fornah and Watts, in particular would have been off most people's radar. Not only that there is some evidence that Lowe is being flexible tactically - Cooper going long or wide rather than short, wing backs swapping sides, Mayor in a free role, right and left centre backs overlapping (as per Sheffield United), varied attacking permutations and the rotation of the squad to suit the game plan against differing opponents. All this whilst managing outbreaks of COVID-19 within the squad that has imposed untimely disciplines
Ryan Lowe repeatedly makes reference to the work on the training ground and the fitness and health management of the players. Like last season that will pay dividends over time, as we got stronger as the season progressed towards the business end of the season culminating in two splendid performances at home in our last two games which not only sealed our promotion but inspired belief we were good enough to win the League.
Graham Clark":31dqd7dl said:
I think our squad is weaker than last season though Graham and weaker than when we last got relegated. Not to say we will go down. Reasons other than player quality led to the relegation.
Balham_Green":1cfcshbi said:Nobby":1cfcshbi said:moles40":1cfcshbi said:
Thought i'd nibble at this, and expand slightly. Personally, I think you are too optimistic. I don't think we are good enough defensively to be promotion contenders. Although unlike some, I do not fear we'll be down the bottom. I think a top half finish is achievable.
Anyway, for some context i thought i'd have a quick look at your statement of "Once we start taking our chances in games then this league better watch out." Mainly for my own curiosity more than anything. Statements like this are the exact reason "Expected Goals" exists. I'm a believer in stats and think xG gives you a good indication of how a team may fare over a period of time. xG calculates the probability of scoring based on the chance created. So the more clear cut/central/closer the chance is, the higher the XG is. Pretty simple. So far this season our results based on xG should be:
Wigan 0.9 - 2.1 Argyle
Lincoln 2.7 - 0.5 Argyle
Argyle 1.6 - 1.2 Northampton
Argyle 1.6 - 0.7 Burton
Hull 1.1 - 1.1 Argyle
Argyle 1.4 - 0.4 Shrewsbury
Wimbledon 2.2 - 2.7 Argyle
Argyle 1.1 - 1.4 Blackpool
To explain how this works, if the xG is within 0.3 of one another, the match is consider a draw. If more than that it suggests one the team with the higher should have won (basically, round to nearest whole). Whilst I can see the limitations of XG, it shows that barring the Lincoln game, we've been very competitive in every game we've played in and created enough to win most.
Outperforming your XG would be a sign that you are very clinical, but don't create many chances. Underperfoming would suggest we create good chances but don't take them. If these patterns continue over a season, the former will eventually stop, the latter will generally catchup. A good example would be Solksjaer's first few months at Man Utd or Emery's first few months at Arsenal. In both circumstances, the teams were outperforming there xG either through outrageous finishing from them, or bad finishing from the opposition. The following season United were atrocious for the first six months and Emery was sacked before Christmas following a poor end and start to the new season. The results started to match the performances.
Here's how the L1 table would look so far if teams took there chances:
Paints a frustrating picture, but shows that we are doing well from box-to-box. We had the issue last year and Hardie and Jephcott came in in January and starting scoring which made the difference. Our current circumstances are similar.
Anyway, I know some don't believe in stats, some think xG is nonsense... "you win games on goals not expected goals" bla bla bla... but just a little bit of data behind the performances giving food for thought (data the club probably looks at).
Interesting Nobby. I certainly don't remember us creating any chances v Hull though do you? also lets look at some of the goals scored. Bad defensive mistake yesterday. Bad keeping error v Northampton and Burton. Offside goal v Burton. Guess thats not taking into account?
Against Hull, Kell Watts had a good chance from a corner which was blocked a couple yards out. Good defending, but in xG terms a good chance. That’s the only good chance that comes to mind, but was a few weeks ago.
In the instances you name the keeper error would be accounted for. The chance of Jephcott scoring would have say been 0.2 xG and resulted in 1 goal. So that’s an example where the chance was not as good as the result suggests. Whereas for example Telford’s diving header v Wimbledon six yards out would have had an XG of say 0.6 (harder to miss than score) and it went wide. So the result underperformed against the quality of the chance. What it suggests in the Burton game is that despite Jephcott scoring a chance that was not that clear, we still had enough chances that on probability we should have scored 1.6 goals (or 2 as rounded). The offside would not have been accounted for. The officials said no offside so the chance is valued as any other in xG terms.
Admittedly I do not know the exact intricacies of the science, but the above is how I understand it.
A few thoughts on the game:
Wigan were as bad as anything I've seen in recent years in the first half;
we should have been out of sight by half-time.
Reeves had a good first half, then disappeared.
Fornah, as with Reeves.
Mayor had a moderate first half, then disappeared.
Edwards had his best game for some time.
Jephcott was unfortunately not at the races.
Moore has stamina; he came into his own in the last ten minutes.
Nouble continues to impress and contribute.
Telford continues to do the opposite.
Hardie is an excellent finisher.
Wigan (Sheridan ?) seemed to decide to target our left side in the second half,
and Naismith caused a lot of trouble.
"Our final ball lacks quality" is the phrase that springs to mind.
Wigan were as bad as anything I've seen in recent years in the first half;
we should have been out of sight by half-time.
Reeves had a good first half, then disappeared.
Fornah, as with Reeves.
Mayor had a moderate first half, then disappeared.
Edwards had his best game for some time.
Jephcott was unfortunately not at the races.
Moore has stamina; he came into his own in the last ten minutes.
Nouble continues to impress and contribute.
Telford continues to do the opposite.
Hardie is an excellent finisher.
Wigan (Sheridan ?) seemed to decide to target our left side in the second half,
and Naismith caused a lot of trouble.
"Our final ball lacks quality" is the phrase that springs to mind.
Nobby":25onyknm said:Balham_Green":25onyknm said:Nobby":25onyknm said:moles40":25onyknm said:
Thought i'd nibble at this, and expand slightly. Personally, I think you are too optimistic. I don't think we are good enough defensively to be promotion contenders. Although unlike some, I do not fear we'll be down the bottom. I think a top half finish is achievable.
Anyway, for some context i thought i'd have a quick look at your statement of "Once we start taking our chances in games then this league better watch out." Mainly for my own curiosity more than anything. Statements like this are the exact reason "Expected Goals" exists. I'm a believer in stats and think xG gives you a good indication of how a team may fare over a period of time. xG calculates the probability of scoring based on the chance created. So the more clear cut/central/closer the chance is, the higher the XG is. Pretty simple. So far this season our results based on xG should be:
Wigan 0.9 - 2.1 Argyle
Lincoln 2.7 - 0.5 Argyle
Argyle 1.6 - 1.2 Northampton
Argyle 1.6 - 0.7 Burton
Hull 1.1 - 1.1 Argyle
Argyle 1.4 - 0.4 Shrewsbury
Wimbledon 2.2 - 2.7 Argyle
Argyle 1.1 - 1.4 Blackpool
To explain how this works, if the xG is within 0.3 of one another, the match is consider a draw. If more than that it suggests one the team with the higher should have won (basically, round to nearest whole). Whilst I can see the limitations of XG, it shows that barring the Lincoln game, we've been very competitive in every game we've played in and created enough to win most.
Outperforming your XG would be a sign that you are very clinical, but don't create many chances. Underperfoming would suggest we create good chances but don't take them. If these patterns continue over a season, the former will eventually stop, the latter will generally catchup. A good example would be Solksjaer's first few months at Man Utd or Emery's first few months at Arsenal. In both circumstances, the teams were outperforming there xG either through outrageous finishing from them, or bad finishing from the opposition. The following season United were atrocious for the first six months and Emery was sacked before Christmas following a poor end and start to the new season. The results started to match the performances.
Here's how the L1 table would look so far if teams took there chances:
Paints a frustrating picture, but shows that we are doing well from box-to-box. We had the issue last year and Hardie and Jephcott came in in January and starting scoring which made the difference. Our current circumstances are similar.
Anyway, I know some don't believe in stats, some think xG is nonsense... "you win games on goals not expected goals" bla bla bla... but just a little bit of data behind the performances giving food for thought (data the club probably looks at).
Interesting Nobby. I certainly don't remember us creating any chances v Hull though do you? also lets look at some of the goals scored. Bad defensive mistake yesterday. Bad keeping error v Northampton and Burton. Offside goal v Burton. Guess thats not taking into account?
Against Hull, Kell Watts had a good chance from a corner which was blocked a couple yards out. Good defending, but in xG terms a good chance. That’s the only good chance that comes to mind, but was a few weeks ago.
In the instances you name the keeper error would be accounted for. The chance of Jephcott scoring would have say been 0.2 xG and resulted in 1 goal. So that’s an example where the chance was not as good as the result suggests. Whereas for example Telford’s diving header v Wimbledon six yards out would have had an XG of say 0.6 (harder to miss than score) and it went wide. So the result underperformed against the quality of the chance. What it suggests in the Burton game is that despite Jephcott scoring a chance that was not that clear, we still had enough chances that on probability we should have scored 1.6 goals (or 2 as rounded). The offside would not have been accounted for. The officials said no offside so the chance is valued as any other in xG terms.
Admittedly I do not know the exact intricacies of the science, but the above is how I understand it.
Can't see how a diving header was 'harder to miss than score'.
Finishing cost us yesterday more than anything. We can pick apart a poor second half performance, but we still had opportunities., and lots of our play up to the 18 yard box was very good. In the first half Jephcott put a simple header over. In the second half Nouble, Mayor, Camara and Telford all had chances to win the game for us. We need to be sharper in front of goal. We're often guilty of taking one touch too many, by which time the angle has closed or we've been charged down. That's the crux of it for me. If (and yes it's an if) we can become a little more lethal in front of goal, we'll be fine (not that 9th represents a poor start by any means anyhow).
Balham_Green":1lurn357 said:Nobby":1lurn357 said:Balham_Green":1lurn357 said:Nobby":1lurn357 said:moles40":1lurn357 said:
Thought i'd nibble at this, and expand slightly. Personally, I think you are too optimistic. I don't think we are good enough defensively to be promotion contenders. Although unlike some, I do not fear we'll be down the bottom. I think a top half finish is achievable.
Anyway, for some context i thought i'd have a quick look at your statement of "Once we start taking our chances in games then this league better watch out." Mainly for my own curiosity more than anything. Statements like this are the exact reason "Expected Goals" exists. I'm a believer in stats and think xG gives you a good indication of how a team may fare over a period of time. xG calculates the probability of scoring based on the chance created. So the more clear cut/central/closer the chance is, the higher the XG is. Pretty simple. So far this season our results based on xG should be:
Wigan 0.9 - 2.1 Argyle
Lincoln 2.7 - 0.5 Argyle
Argyle 1.6 - 1.2 Northampton
Argyle 1.6 - 0.7 Burton
Hull 1.1 - 1.1 Argyle
Argyle 1.4 - 0.4 Shrewsbury
Wimbledon 2.2 - 2.7 Argyle
Argyle 1.1 - 1.4 Blackpool
To explain how this works, if the xG is within 0.3 of one another, the match is consider a draw. If more than that it suggests one the team with the higher should have won (basically, round to nearest whole). Whilst I can see the limitations of XG, it shows that barring the Lincoln game, we've been very competitive in every game we've played in and created enough to win most.
Outperforming your XG would be a sign that you are very clinical, but don't create many chances. Underperfoming would suggest we create good chances but don't take them. If these patterns continue over a season, the former will eventually stop, the latter will generally catchup. A good example would be Solksjaer's first few months at Man Utd or Emery's first few months at Arsenal. In both circumstances, the teams were outperforming there xG either through outrageous finishing from them, or bad finishing from the opposition. The following season United were atrocious for the first six months and Emery was sacked before Christmas following a poor end and start to the new season. The results started to match the performances.
Here's how the L1 table would look so far if teams took there chances:
Paints a frustrating picture, but shows that we are doing well from box-to-box. We had the issue last year and Hardie and Jephcott came in in January and starting scoring which made the difference. Our current circumstances are similar.
Anyway, I know some don't believe in stats, some think xG is nonsense... "you win games on goals not expected goals" bla bla bla... but just a little bit of data behind the performances giving food for thought (data the club probably looks at).
Interesting Nobby. I certainly don't remember us creating any chances v Hull though do you? also lets look at some of the goals scored. Bad defensive mistake yesterday. Bad keeping error v Northampton and Burton. Offside goal v Burton. Guess thats not taking into account?
Against Hull, Kell Watts had a good chance from a corner which was blocked a couple yards out. Good defending, but in xG terms a good chance. That’s the only good chance that comes to mind, but was a few weeks ago.
In the instances you name the keeper error would be accounted for. The chance of Jephcott scoring would have say been 0.2 xG and resulted in 1 goal. So that’s an example where the chance was not as good as the result suggests. Whereas for example Telford’s diving header v Wimbledon six yards out would have had an XG of say 0.6 (harder to miss than score) and it went wide. So the result underperformed against the quality of the chance. What it suggests in the Burton game is that despite Jephcott scoring a chance that was not that clear, we still had enough chances that on probability we should have scored 1.6 goals (or 2 as rounded). The offside would not have been accounted for. The officials said no offside so the chance is valued as any other in xG terms.
Admittedly I do not know the exact intricacies of the science, but the above is how I understand it.
Can't see how a diving header was 'harder to miss than score'.
Just a random example in fairness. However Telford was In space, no defender pressure, close to goal, fairly central. To not hit the target was very poor.
- Oct 31, 2010
- 24,440
- 1
- 10,769
With the squad rotation going on at the moment and the amount of games being played Lowe has the perfect excuse of resting Cooper without denting his confidence.
The problem is - is Ruddy and McCormick (when fit in a few weeks) any better?
Only Cooper, Watts and Mayor have started every league game this season.
The problem is - is Ruddy and McCormick (when fit in a few weeks) any better?
Only Cooper, Watts and Mayor have started every league game this season.
https://twitter.com/LaticsOfficial/stat ... 1728215040
I don't think the goal was Cooper's fault. The cross comes in too easily, and then the forward is allowed a free run to attack the ball unchallenged. Poor defending more than poor goalkeeping.
I don't think the goal was Cooper's fault. The cross comes in too easily, and then the forward is allowed a free run to attack the ball unchallenged. Poor defending more than poor goalkeeping.
PL2 3DQ":21ozql09 said:
Ruddy, probably not. McCormick, perhaps, considering he did play some League 2 football last season for a title winning team and reportedly performed well. That being said, I wouldn't drop him as of yet.
