Match Of The Day 9/9/17 - Official Thread

[Pevenseagull]

I ****ing love us so much.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Standard analysis of a team that is unknown territory for our MOTD pundits. And fair enough. Put a few more results together and we'll have more enthusiasm. Under the radar is good for now.

 

[Mr deez]

That was before kick-off. Its based on average goals/attacks over previous games and comparing relative league form. Since we had no goals in the first 3 games and if i recall we didnt score hardly anything as the end of last season after promotion (hence missing out on the title) so thats why we were only expected to score 0.4 goals !

Don't think that is right, expected goals quoted there is based on the quality of chances. None of our goals or other attempts would have been highly likely to be scored, so OPTA say we were either especially clinical with our chances, or got a bit lucky scoring 3.

 

[AmexRuislip]

 

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Disappointing coverage and analysis.
No mention of the quality crossfield pass by Gross to March in the lead up to the first goal by Gross

 

[seagulls4ever]

It's hilarious how bad the MOTD coverage is. The 'talents' that are Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer earn £2m and £450k per year. No idea what Ian Wright is on, but whatever it is, it's too much. I don't care about the 'names' - surely they can find some pundits with more insight for that sort of $?

No doubt Sky pundits are also raking it in, probably more so, but at least there is some talent there.

 

[Triggaaar]

How was our expected goals 0.4 but theirs 1, when we had 6 on target and them 3?!

Where did you get the stat? We battered them for most of the game.

Edit:

That was before kick-off.

Oh. Weird, as we were favourites with the bookies.

 

[Brok]

Fell asleep at 10, just woken up. Missed it.

 

[Mr deez]

Where did you get the stat? We battered them for most of the game.
.

was on the MOTD stats ticker thing whilst they were talking.

 

[Jesus Gul]

'Olly March', 'Hamad, or Hemed'

Got to feel for Motty and Wrighty as they struggle with these lesser players

 

[T soprano]

8:30 this morning
Sky premier league channel
Albion v wba extended highlights

 

[Is it PotG?]

Wrighty REALLY isn't a fan of ours is he? Maybe we give his mate Brighty too much grief.

Only positive "They do make a noise down there".

 

[Wellesley]

Being a conductor must be the most piss-easy job in the world. they don't write the music, they don't play the instruments - they just stand at the front and wave a stick about and get all the plaudits. If he wasn't there doing that I'm sure the piece would sound near damn identical.

Oh dear. Culturally, you are SO beneath me.

 

[Wellesley]

I'm watching it in my bath, naked, looking forwards to a thorough clean.

Don't stop there, keep typing, I'll tell you when I'm finished.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Seeing as this is going a little off-topic

Ritchie Towell scored the winner for Rotherham yesterday.

 

[Daddies_Sauce]

Disappointed not to see any comment of the minutes applause for Motty in his last season, happy to remain under the radar for now, a few more results like that and I doubt that will be the case.

 

[Triggaaar]

was on the MOTD stats ticker thing whilst they were talking.

Thanks - although I was looking forward to it last night, I got distracted, so only just watched it. So the stat was clearly from the chances created in the game. How the hell were were 0.4? Hemed's chance was really tough, granted, but Pascal's first chance wasn't, and his second chance wasn't too bad either. Amazing the difference a bit of quality finishing makes.

 

[Albumen]

Murphy and Jenas are far the better pundits, as much as I've warmed to Wright over the past couple of years. Shearer will always come across cold and obvious. That said, there wasn't too much to talk about last night i.e. Controversial moments.

 

[Triggaaar]

8:30 this morning
Sky premier league channel
Albion v wba extended highlights

Damn, didn't know this was on.

 

[Freddo]

How was our expected goals 0.4 but theirs 1, when we had 6 on target and them 3?!

That was before kick-off. Its based on average goals/attacks over previous games and comparing relative league form. Since we had no goals in the first 3 games and if i recall we didnt score hardly anything as the end of last season after promotion (hence missing out on the title) so thats why we were only expected to score 0.4 goals !

This isn't how xG works

Don't think that is right, expected goals quoted there is based on the quality of chances. None of our goals or other attempts would have been highly likely to be scored, so OPTA say we were either especially clinical with our chances, or got a bit lucky scoring 3.

This is more or less correct

Each shot is given an xG value based on how likely it is to be scored, which primarily takes into account exactly where the shot is taken from, the angle to goal, the position of the goalkeeper, and whether it was a header or not. A goal is scored roughly once every 9 shots, so the average xG value is around 11% / 0.11

The xG value you see on MOTD are the sum of all the individual xG values over the course of the match for each team.

If you look back at our chances, in particular the 2nd and 3rd goals, both would have a pretty low xG value. Foster will have been expected to save the 2nd goal considering how far out it was, and for Hemed's he managed to squeeze it in at the near post where again Foster would have been expected to save it.

On the other hand, West Brom's goal and their chance at the very end each both had quite high xG values, both were about 8 yards out and very central.

This article explains it better than me: http://www.optasports.com/news-area...oals-makes-its-way-into-mainstream-media.aspx