Jump to content

Double Winning St Johnstone FC Thread


Recommended Posts

xG conceded for that goal was 0.52, meaning 52% of the time you'd expect a goalkeeper to concede it.

Only Kanes goal was rated as a better chance, from the goalkeepers side of things.

I'm all for saying Clark isn't good enough and concedes too easily, as he clearly does, but I don't think its justified based on the United game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW Clarks figures are incredibly close to McCrories at Livingstons, just a bit worse.

They replaced McCrorie with Stryjek, whos coming out as one of the best in the league, we stuck with Clark...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

FWIW Clarks figures are incredibly close to McCrories at Livingstons, just a bit worse.

They replaced McCrorie with Stryjek, whos coming out as one of the best in the league, we stuck with Clark...

McCrorie is shocking as well. So many errors, he never seems to be making any actual good saves. We'd been begging the club to give Stryjek his chance for ages and he only got it once McCrorie got COVID ffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

McCrorie is shocking as well. So many errors, he never seems to be making any actual good saves. We'd been begging the club to give Stryjek his chance for ages and he only got it once McCrorie got COVID ffs

Yeah McCrorie comes out really shite from numbers alone tbh, Stryjek looks a massive improvement.

McCrorie conceded every 2.22 shots faced, per90, second worst rate of any keeper (min.800minutes) since 2015/16.

Guess who the worst is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Yeah McCrorie comes out really shite from numbers alone tbh, Stryjek looks a massive improvement.

McCrorie conceded every 2.22 shots faced, per90, second worst rate of any keeper (min.800minutes) since 2015/16.

Guess who the worst is...

That's horrific wow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ATLIS said:

That's horrific wow

Yeah its not great. You've got Clark at every 1.96 shots, McCrorie at 2.22, then a selection of abominations in Scully, Pereira, Maxwell, and Baxter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

xG conceded for that goal was 0.52, meaning 52% of the time you'd expect a goalkeeper to concede it.

Only Kanes goal was rated as a better chance, from the goalkeepers side of things.

I'm all for saying Clark isn't good enough and concedes too easily, as he clearly does, but I don't think its justified based on the United game.

So almost half the time a keeper would make a save, but i feel Clark wouldn't save this very often.

I believe he's better that he's showing but its been 18 months+. We cant wait for him to get better, I'd have dropped him after Rangers.

 

Alan Mannus used to make goal saving stops & few howlers. Clarks howlers is higher & so many 'could fo better' goals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarks been shit, but against United one goal is an unmarked player 6 yards out. Against County the goal comes from an unmarked player 12 yards out. Aberdeen a penalty and a player with a free shot 12 yards out. Against St Mirren 2 free headers from 6 yards and an unmarked player 12 yards out.
Rangers a travesty of a performance from Clark, but again for the first you've got Roofe unmarked to tap in. Second Kamara allowed to run in the box unchallenged to be 1v1.
The rest of the team shouldn't escape criticism, they've been woeful defensively this season.
Against County Zander passed to the unmarked player!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not defending Clark. He shouldve been replaced in the Summer, and he's a major reason we're so low in the league.

I'm just saying conceding the first goal wasn't a blunder.

I'm all for criticising him but I'd rather not just jump on every single goal he concedes and try and paint it as a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given our shots on target, we'd have conceded around 12 less goals with a competent goalkeeper. 

Even if you remove all the goals that haven't altered results, that still gives us a minimum of 2 more points. The reality is maybe more that it could have turned 3 draws into wins and 3 defeats into draws.

An average goalkeeper and we have 12 more points, which I think would be a truer reflection on our performances. 

I really hope the situation is going to be addressed in the summer and even leaving it that long is a gamble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Kal Naismith apparently signing for Luton. 

It felt like one that if we didn't get it done quickly, we weren't going to manage it. 

The manager doesn't give much away but his summer business wasn't overly tricky for the club. Don't imagine that Bryson or Conway had a queue for their services, the loans were easy enough given the manager's links and Melamed seemed desperate to play in the UK. 

Again, Brown not a tricky deal, so the rest of the month and beyond will be interesting. Can Kirsten Robertson and Steve Brown deliver the players the manager wants moving forward? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Kal Naismith apparently signing for Luton.

I don't think it was ever a realistic possibility.He was one of Wigan's top earners and they were hoping to get a transfer fee for him.They reluctantly freed him  by mutual consent  as it removed a large wage from a cash strapped club.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my own piece of mind, can we just clarify that xG isn't an actual factual scientific number?

Things like shots on target, pass completion, possession etc can be pretty much spot on, but isn't xG just a bunch of wee geeks sitting in a room trying to compare completely different shots on different days hit by different players on different surfaces and with a thousand other variables?  It is completely subjective.

I can see a possible relevance in comparing different keepers across a league,  as the same group of analysts will hopefully bring a degree of consistency to it, but things like that shot Utd scored will be a goal 52% of the time is just absolute and utter nonsense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

For my own piece of mind, can we just clarify that xG isn't an actual factual scientific number?

Things like shots on target, pass completion, possession etc can be pretty much spot on, but isn't xG just a bunch of wee geeks sitting in a room trying to compare completely different shots on different days hit by different players on different surfaces and with a thousand other variables?  It is completely subjective.

I can see a possible relevance in comparing different keepers across a league,  as the same group of analysts will hopefully bring a degree of consistency to it, but things like that shot Utd scored will be a goal 52% of the time is just absolute and utter nonsense.

WyScout use...

Screenshot_20210115-120021_Chrome.thumb.jpg.6893719170832e7d084acf79b2105307.jpg

... to value it, and I believe have individual "taggers" who focus on individual leagues only, and then a second group who double check it all.

They use 10,000+ previous shots, going back over a decade, to build their models.

So in the past 52% of times a player getting a "foot" shoot from 6 yards out, from a cutback, sees the keeper beaten.

I won't try and force you into believing it/thinking its correct, fwiw, but thats the process behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WyScout use...
Screenshot_20210115-120021_Chrome.thumb.jpg.6893719170832e7d084acf79b2105307.jpg
... to value it, and I believe have individual "taggers" who focus on individual leagues only, and then a second group who double check it all.
They use 10,000+ previous shots, going back over a decade, to build their models.
So in the past 52% of times a player getting a "foot" shoot from 6 yards out, from a cutback, sees the keeper beaten.
I won't try and force you into believing it/thinking its correct, fwiw, but thats the process behind it.

Genuinely surprised by how few variables they use reading that to be honest..

I think xG is probably useful for measuring how good a striker is at taking chances - but the fact it doesn’t take into account any of the following means I’m unsure it’s particularly useful when looking at whether a keeper should save a shot or not:

Perceived talent of the player taking the shot
Pitch surface
Power of the shot (surely this is crucial for judging whether a keeper should save, no?)
Positioning of defenders
Pressure on the shot from defenders
Weak foot/strong foot
Height of the shot


Etc etc - there are defo lots more. The reason xG doesn’t use any of those variables is because it’s looking at something else: how strong a shooting chance is and whether a goal is expected. But because it’s looking at that and not whether a keeper should save, it’s surely useless here as a way of judging goalkeepers?

I do also agree with the basic point that it’s a subjective science - completely fine, but compared to other statistical measurements there is a lot more perception involved. Shouldn’t be presented as an unarguable fact/stat.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

WyScout use...

Screenshot_20210115-120021_Chrome.thumb.jpg.6893719170832e7d084acf79b2105307.jpg

... to value it, and I believe have individual "taggers" who focus on individual leagues only, and then a second group who double check it all.

They use 10,000+ previous shots, going back over a decade, to build their models.

So in the past 52% of times a player getting a "foot" shoot from 6 yards out, from a cutback, sees the keeper beaten.

I won't try and force you into believing it/thinking its correct, fwiw, but thats the process behind it.

Okay thanks for the info.

Appreciate they put a lot of work into it, but I just feel one cutback from the edge of the 6 yard box can look like another, but it can be played at a slightly different pace, a few cm away from the player, hit a bobble, the defender might be in his line of vision etc.  I think finishing during play is too open a skill to get accurate comparisons.

If you're talking about closed skills like a penalty, a free kick, a serve in tennis etc, then comparisons are far more valid.

Obviously this is the way football is going, and to folk that are into it I'm probably taking the dinosaur stance. I also get the argument that they feel they are quantifying what folk already do, I.e. When someone says "he should have scored from there" they are basically comparing the chance to previous ones they've seen as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...