[Albion] Two touches in the opposition box

[Bozza]

I know it doesn't make any difference. I know both those touches were goals. I know that means they won and we lost.

However, is there any stat-age out there regarding the fewest touches in the opposition's box in Premier League history? Has a side ever bettered (worsened?) last night's shit show?

 

[Swansman]

I know there's been occasions where teams scored on their only touch inside the penalty area but two in two... possibly a record.

 

[beorhthelm]

im pretty sure there have been zero touch in opposition area (by Palace too). two touches and two goals might be unique tough.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

Was checking this morning. Benteke goal XG was 0.03 i.e. 3% chance he buries that.

 

[neilbard]

I know it doesn't make any difference. I know both those touches were goals. I know that means they won and we lost.

However, is there any stat-age out there regarding the fewest touches in the opposition's box in Premier League history? Has a side ever bettered (worsened?) last night's shit show?

It's that old adage, you have to take your chances at this level,

25 yes 25 ****ing shots and only 5 yes 5 on target, it ain't good enough, sort it out and quick Potter.

One home win all season, we certainly have progressed from last, torturous watch at times..

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Was checking this morning. Benteke goal XG was 0.03 i.e. 3% chance he buries that.

I would be interested to try to understand what that means. He scored that goal in large part because Burn wasn’t watching the ball as he turned. The probability of scoring for any striker is a lot more than 3 % given that standard of defending.

 

[happypig]

I would be interested to try to understand what that means. He scored that goal in large part because Burn wasn’t watching the ball as he turned. The probability of scoring for any striker is a lot more than 3 % given that standard of defending.

What it means, IMHO, is this new fangled "xG" stat is absolute bollocks.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I know it doesn't make any difference. I know both those touches were goals. I know that means they won and we lost.

However, is there any stat-age out there regarding the fewest touches in the opposition's box in Premier League history? Has a side ever bettered (worsened?) last night's shit show?

Nothing the Albion 'achieves' will ever surprise me. After all we managed to lose 2-0 to Norwich in 2017 and they didn't even have a shot on target.

 

[BBassic]

It's that old adage, you have to take your chances at this level,

25 yes 25 ****ing shots and only 5 yes 5 on target, it ain't good enough, sort it out and quick Potter.

One home win all season, we certainly have progressed from last, torturous watch at times..

Yeah it's pretty bad.

Looking at the stats Palace got in 9 blocks so seems they did their defensive duties perfectly.

The other 11 off target is definitely concerning, at least one of those was a classic Biss "hit and hope" which I personally wish he'd cut out.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

What it means, IMHO, is this new fangled "xG" stat is absolute bollocks.

It measures what it measures but I would argue that isn’t much at all. It seems to be a much misused stat as people draw conclusions that shouldn’t be drawn on the back of it.

 

[Bozza]

Was checking this morning. Benteke goal XG was 0.03 i.e. 3% chance he buries that.

I wrote this elsewhere last night...

"Benteke hits that 100 times. Probably gets it on target 10 times tops and Sanchez would save at least half of those."

...so I wasn't too far away.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I would be interested to try to understand what that means. He scored that goal in large part because Burn wasn’t watching the ball as he turned. The probability of scoring for any striker is a lot more than 3 % given that standard of defending.

I think you could take Burn out of that situation altogether, leave Benteke unmarked and sling crosses over to him all afternoon and he'd score with maybe 1 in 100, maybe less from a cross that deep and at that angle.

Meanwhile at the other end Cahill had the game of his life. Dunk has made some heroic blocks in his career, Cahill must have made 3 just in the second half.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think you could take Burn out of that situation altogether, leave Benteke unmarked and sling crosses over to him all afternoon and he'd score with maybe 1 in 100, maybe less from a cross that deep and at that angle.

Meanwhile at the other end Cahill had the game of his life. Dunk has made some heroic blocks in his career, Cahill must have made 3 just in the second half.

Reasonable point of view but weren’t we saying after Villa that their keeper had the game of his life. Surely there is something else going on when all these opposition players defy the laws of probability when they play against us ?

 

[Swansman]

Apparently this was Bentekes 4th winning goal scored in the 90th minute or later, all-time record in the PL.

 

[neilbard]

I think you could take Burn out of that situation altogether, leave Benteke unmarked and sling crosses over to him all afternoon and he'd score with maybe 1 in 100, maybe less from a cross that deep and at that angle.

Meanwhile at the other end Cahill had the game of his life. Dunk has made some heroic blocks in his career, Cahill must have made 3 just in the second half.

Dunk clearing off the goal line against Fulham, saved us a certain defeat.

 

[portslade seagull]

I know it doesn't make any difference. I know both those touches were goals. I know that means they won and we lost.

However, is there any stat-age out there regarding the fewest touches in the opposition's box in Premier League history? Has a side ever bettered (worsened?) last night's shit show?

What does that make us though with are gazillion of touches in there box with no end result. Been going on for a while now. Pretty football doesn't win much unless you spend shedloads like City. Palace know how to win ugly and will stay up us however

 

[dazzer6666]

What it means, IMHO, is this new fangled "xG" stat is absolute bollocks.

Nah, it makes sense - hit that cross to him 100 times and he'll score about 3......(on a good day).

The stats are interesting, and useful for a whole load of reasons but some people put too much faith in them. They're an indication - but you can never stat the randomness of human interaction................

 

[Dorset Seagull]

xG will indicate the difficulty in a scoring chance. However I'm not sure it factors in the quality of the striker taking the shot

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Reasonable point of view but weren’t we saying after Villa that their keeper had the game of his life. Surely there is something else going on when all these opposition players defy the laws of probability when they play against us ?

Dunk clearing off the goal line against Fulham, saved us a certain defeat.

Absolutely. There is no hiding from our principle problem of scoring goals. In the games mentioned, Villa, Fulham and Palace they had a game plan of simply defending in numbers and hoping we’d give up a chance that they would take. It’s something the likes of the £700m value squads of MU, Chelsea and Spurs struggle to overcome and what we’re struggling to overcome. We don’t have a £50m Fernando or Rashford or Son or Kane to dig us out of a hole, and so we need to keep working on improving. It doesn’t necessarily happen overnight.

Wolves last season were a force with Jiminez’s goals. This season struggled to score. They haven’t gone backwards, they’ve just lost their principle attacking threat. We just need to find ours.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I wrote this elsewhere last night...

"Benteke hits that 100 times. Probably gets it on target 10 times tops and Sanchez would save at least half of those."

...so I wasn't too far away.

I’d say him scoring five was a tad optimistic