Queens vs Pars

[CallumPar]

That stat is misleading .
Kennedy was a inch wide with one shot.
Dunfermline scored but thankfully a tight offside decision saved us .
Poor game could have gone either way great  that we got the win it is fine margins in the Championship .

If it’s not on target, it won’t result in a goal. Kennedy’s shot could have gone 25 yards over the bar and it would be the same result. If you’re offside you’ve probably gained an advantage, making the chance easier to score. It was tight, but still can’t count as a shot on target.

We’ve had one shot on target in the last 270 minutes of football. There’s nothing misleading about that statistic. In 270 minutes of football, we have had one attempt that had any chance of resulting in a goal - and it actually did result in one. No keeper has made a save against us since the last minute of the Inverness game and we’ve only scored 1 goal in those 3 games. No point trying to say offsides and shots being close (but not on target) are misleading. Goals win games. Shots off target don’t result in goals, whether they’re inches off target or 10 yards off target.

Nobody’s trying to say QoS dominated, by saying we had no shots on target. It just shows that we are not causing defences/keepers nearly enough problems.

[Homer Thompson]

That stat is misleading .
Kennedy was a inch wide with one shot.
Dunfermline scored but thankfully a tight offside decision saved us .
Poor game could have gone either way great  that we got the win it is fine margins in the Championship .

So, not misleading then? Thanks

If it’s not on target, it won’t result in a goal. Kennedy’s shot could have gone 25 yards over the bar and it would be the same result. If you’re offside you’ve probably gained an advantage, making the chance easier to score. It was tight, but still can’t count as a shot on target.

We’ve had one shot on target in the last 270 minutes of football. There’s nothing misleading about that statistic. In 270 minutes of football, we have had one attempt that had any chance of resulting in a goal - and it actually did result in one. No keeper has made a save against us since the last minute of the Inverness game and we’ve only scored 1 goal in those 3 games. No point trying to say offsides and shots being close (but not on target) are misleading. Goals win games. Shots off target don’t result in goals, whether they’re inches off target or 10 yards off target.

Nobody’s trying to say QoS dominated, by saying we had no shots on target. It just shows that we are not causing defences/keepers nearly enough problems.

Wow, I had no idea it was that bad.

Starting to feel tiny bit sorry for the pars fans now.

[HoBNob]

Shots on target are a pretty shite way of judging how high quality a chance was tbf, xG is far better representation, shame its not readily available. 

 

 

With that you'd see that both teams probably had a negative xG, two brutal sides. 

[19QOS19]

Shots on target are a pretty shite way of judging how high quality a chance was tbf, xG is far better representation, shame its not readily available. 
 
 
With that you'd see that both teams probably had a negative xG, two brutal sides. 

I've no idea how all that stuff works but I expect we'd have been expected to get at least one or two. We've scored 21 from our 13 games this season. We made very hard work of it on Saturday but scoring goals hasn't been our biggest problem, it's conceding sloppy ones that's been our downfall.

Or TL;DR, it was a bigger surprise we managed a clean sheet than it was that we scored.

[HoBNob]

9 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I've no idea how all that stuff works but I expect we'd have been expected to get at least one or two. We've scored 21 from our 13 games this season. We made very hard work of it on Saturday but scoring goals hasn't been our biggest problem, it's conceding sloppy ones that's been our downfall.

Or TL;DR, it was a bigger surprise we managed a clean sheet than it was that we scored.

I'd be surprised if either side had an xG of more than one from Saturday tbh. 

[CallumPar]

Shots on target are a pretty shite way of judging how high quality a chance was tbf, xG is far better representation, shame its not readily available. 
 
 
With that you'd see that both teams probably had a negative xG, two brutal sides. 

But we haven’t created any real chances in the last 3 games, other than the goal v Raith, have we? Todorov’s header and Wighton’s late chance against ICT are honestly the last time I remember thinking “he should have scored that”.

One good chance created in 3 games is abysmal. Not sure why you’re going on about xG as if that would improve anything. We have no goals in our 4 home games. 1 goal in our last 4 league games overall and have failed to score in 6 of our last 8 games in all competitions.

No matter how you dress that up, it isn’t good enough for any team. Let alone one that publicly stated that the target was to win the league this year - no matter how foolish that statement was, even at the time.

[Shandon Par]

It’s one thing inheriting a squad who don’t much like you or your methods but signing folk who don’t rate you is a special talent Grant has.

[HoBNob]

11 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

But we haven’t created any real chances in the last 3 games, other than the goal v Raith, have we? Todorov’s header and Wighton’s late chance against ICT are honestly the last time I remember thinking “he should have scored that”.

One good chance created in 3 games is abysmal. Not sure why you’re going on about xG as if that would improve anything. We have no goals in our 4 home games. 1 goal in our last 4 league games overall and have failed to score in 6 of our last 8 games in all competitions.

No matter how you dress that up, it isn’t good enough for any team. Let alone one that publicly stated that the target was to win the league this year - no matter how foolish that statement was, even at the time.

I'm not dressing anything up, or trying to make anything look better, just a bit of a personal annoyance when people use shots on target as a good metric for a teams fortunes. Someone said earlier about Kennedys shot being wide, and if the shot was replayed a hundred times it wouldn't go in or something, except that over a hundred times he might hit it better, it might go in etc.

 

If I were to sky the ball over from a yard that's a far better chance than someone hitting a trundler from 45 yards. 

 

I wasn't meaning that if we were to use xG over Grant's reign things would look better, they wouldn't. It was just me being a pedantic dick about shots on target, soz x

[CallumPar]

I'm not dressing anything up, or trying to make anything look better, just a bit of a personal annoyance when people use shots on target as a good metric for a teams fortunes. Someone said earlier about Kennedys shot being wide, and if the shot was replayed a hundred times it wouldn't go in or something, except that over a hundred times he might hit it better, it might go in etc.
 
If I were to sky the ball over from a yard that's a far better chance than someone hitting a trundler from 45 yards. 
 
I wasn't meaning that if we were to use xG over Grant's reign things would look better, they wouldn't. It was just me being a pedantic dick about shots on target, soz x

Fair enough. Agree with what you’re saying from a general perspective. Think that was me misunderstanding the point you were trying to make, sorry about that.

[HoBNob]

4 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

Fair enough. Agree with what you’re saying from a general perspective. Think that was me misunderstanding the point you were trying to make, sorry about that.

No problem, strangely the lack of xG probably helps Grant, it would show that not only are we not getting shots on target, we're just flat-out not creating chances that you'd expect to score from. 

 

 

It's proper grim. 

[Otis Blue]

Old git alert here .... wtf is xG?

[Guest Flash]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

I've no idea how all that stuff works but I expect we'd have been expected to get at least one or two. We've scored 21 from our 13 games this season. We made very hard work of it on Saturday but scoring goals hasn't been our biggest problem, it's conceding sloppy ones that's been our downfall.

Or TL;DR, it was a bigger surprise we managed a clean sheet than it was that we scored.

xG is the goals you’d expect from the type of chances created in a game. Our overall xG might have been relatively high before Saturday, but the xG in the game itself was probably very low.
Whilst I agree that conceding sloppy goals has been the bigger problem, I think after a decent start, scoring has also become an issue. We’ve now scored 4 in the last 5. That would equate to 29 goals scored in a 36 game season, which isn’t great.

[Rjc-1988]

I watched the game on the PPV and when you couple the blustery conditions and the absolutely dreadful playing surface - a good footballing spectacle is virtually impossible. Ball bounces all over the place from simple lay offs and it is a simply a case of “playing the percentages” - trying to play football when you get a chance but mainly defending diligently and trying to take whatever chances come along.

For what it’s worth I thought we did pretty well in tricky conditions. Defended really well (which is a positive) and took the one great chance when it came along. Don’t think we created much and this has become a problem in recent games but overall we made ourselves very difficult to beat and limited Pars to virtually nothing. The pitch has a huge bearing on the quality of the football on show and this has to be taken into account.

[Homer Thompson]

I'm not dressing anything up, or trying to make anything look better, just a bit of a personal annoyance when people use shots on target as a good metric for a teams fortunes. Someone said earlier about Kennedys shot being wide, and if the shot was replayed a hundred times it wouldn't go in or something, except that over a hundred times he might hit it better, it might go in etc.
 
If I were to sky the ball over from a yard that's a far better chance than someone hitting a trundler from 45 yards. 
 
I wasn't meaning that if we were to use xG over Grant's reign things would look better, they wouldn't. It was just me being a pedantic dick about shots on target, soz x

I wasn't putting it forward as anything than a statement of fact.

It's also fact, thkoo, that if you have 0 shots on target you will score 0 goals.

Old git alert here .... wtf is xG?

Load of bollocks

[HoBNob]

14 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I wasn't putting it forward as anything than a statement of fact.

It's also fact, thkoo, that if you have 0 shots on target you will score 0 goals. 

That doesn't quantify how good a chance it is though. 

 

No, that's not a fact, if you a hit shot that hits the post and then goes in you've scored a goal and not had a shot on target, if you hit a shot that's going wide and gets deflected in you have a goal that wasn't on target. Hell, a passback from a defender that trundles in? Goal. If you're going to pass something off as a fact, can you in future make sure you're not talking rubbish? Thank you. 

 

xG is a far more accurate representation of a chance than just mindlessly droning on about shots on target. 

The future is now old man. 

[Distant Doonhamer]

I remember watching a game in Champions League when Arsenal were 1-0 up in the Camp Nou despite having no shots on target. Busquets own goal from a corner I think. Wasn’t expecting to reference prime Barca in a Queens v Pars thread but there we are. [emoji23]

[HoBNob]

54 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

Old git alert here .... wtf is xG?

Whenever a shot is taken on a football pitch it has a relevant xG (Expected Goal) the maxium an xG can be from a chance is 1, a penalty for example has an xG of 0.76, a tap in the middle of an empty goal might have an xG of 0.9 or something like, whereas a speculative 35 yard hit would be much lower, like 0.08 or something. 

Now if we were Mr X and we got to the end of a hypothetical game that finished 0-0, however one team had a penalty they put wide and had an open goal that they scooped over. However the opposition had one shot on target from 40 yards that reached the keeper at a snails pace, but was on target, who's had the better of the game? Mr X would be shouting from the rooftops that the team with one shot on target from 40 yards had the better of it. Its a nonsense. 

 

https://raumdatafootball.com/2020/01/19/the-worst-miss-ever-a-beginners-guide-to-expected-goals-part-1/

 

There's a article here explaining it, which shows the Yakubu miss

This has an xG of 0.99, because 99 times out of hundred that goes in. However in the 2010 match thread Mr X was busy posting about how it wasn't a shot on target so it should be forgotten about. 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Grant228

[HoBNob]

13 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

I remember watching a game in Champions League when Arsenal were 1-0 up in the Camp Nou despite having no shots on target. Busquets own goal from a corner I think. Wasn’t expecting to reference prime Barca in a Queens v Pars thread but there we are.

Can't score with 0 shots on target. Fact. @Mr X

[Homer Thompson]

15 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

That doesn't quantify how good a chance it is though. 

 

No, that's not a fact, if you a hit shot that hits the post and then goes in you've scored a goal and not had a shot on target, if you hit a shot that's going wide and gets deflected in you have a goal that wasn't on target. Hell, a passback from a defender that trundles in? Goal. If you're going to pass something off as a fact, can you in future make sure you're not talking rubbish? Thank you. 

 

xG is a far more accurate representation of a chance than just mindlessly droning on about shots on target. 

The future is now old man. 

FFS. If you have 0 shots on goal then you have 0 chance of scoring through your own efforts. I didnt think that really needed explained but here we are.

7 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Whenever a shot is taken on a football pitch it has a relevant xG (Expected Goal) the maxium an xG can be from a chance is 1, a penalty for example has an xG of 0.76, a tap in the middle of an empty goal might have an xG of 0.9 or something like, whereas a speculative 35 yard hit would be much lower, like 0.08 or something. 

Now if we were Mr X and we got to the end of a hypothetical game that finished 0-0, however one team had a penalty they put wide and had an open goal that they scooped over. However the opposition had one shot on target from 40 yards that reached the keeper at a snails pace, but was on target, who's had the better of the game? Mr X would be shouting from the rooftops that the team with one shot on target from 40 yards had the better of it. Its a nonsense. 

A nonsense that I didnt remotely say.

Thanks anyway though

[HoBNob]

8 minutes ago, Mr X said:

FFS. If you have 0 shots on goal then you have 0 chance of scoring through your own efforts. I didnt think that really needed explained but here we are.

Except, you do. 

 

As shown by the three examples I showed you.