Weston Super Saint

Absolute horseshit as usual. It had everything to do with timing, the 'winter break' during the world cup (essentially a 'pre-season') and the fact that we simply had to come out fighting against teams where we should, realistically, have picked up points. 6 or even 4 points from those three games shouldn't have been unreasonable in those circumstances which would have taken off an awful lot of pressure right now. The turn around has been great and we have a team that is starting to look like a team and look like winning. Make no bones about it though, we are a long way off being out of the woods right now. By not securing the points in his first 3 games, we now have to win against teams in the top half of the table. I'm not saying we won't, the signs are more positive, but we really can't afford any more banana skins.

So, in 'Northern speak' you would be 'lick t house'?

🤣🤣🤣

Odd. Did we beat Brighton, Forest and Fulham then? As I pointed out we were also shit in the first half against Palace. The improvement has been since then. I've never said we will NEVER improve after the Lincoln game, just that we DIDN'T at that point. Maybe it escaped you, but we actually got worse....

Don't be a daftee. Without the fans pointing out the errors we would never have improved.

Who will have the loudest protest at the end of the game - maybe we can have a poll?

He has a first name - which not only has an 'E' but also puts his vowel percentage above 50%....

8 whole seconds of fireworks. Seems about right as I doubt they could afford to buy enough to last longer. Probably weren't even noticed by the team. On a side note, if that is the hotel, why are we staying in something that looks like a city centre Premier Inn?

Probably explains the dating site activity

We played Lincoln on 20th December, then lost three games on the bounce (Forest on 4th January). There were definitely no signs of improvement after the Lincoln game when we played Brighton, Fulham & Forest and the first half against Palace was arguably equally as poor.

*Allegedly* she'd have to live in Stoke....

Therefore, as we've all pointed out, it's made up bullshit to make the 'data' try and fit the 'facts' 😉 For the record, I'm not angry or upset about that! It seems there's an entire industry that's been created which is probably superfluous for the overwhelming majority of fans, but if it makes others happy to knock one out over the figures in the privacy of their own bedroom, I'm very happy for them

Stiff fucking raining where I am - 6 out of 7 days this week!

Looking at the bullet points from Wyscout it would appear to only be calculated on the 'assist' and 'shot', but includes if a 'dribble' was also carried out, but I guess only if that dribble immediately preceded the pass that counts as the assist.....

Can you imagine waking up with that, she'll start talking and you'll think you went to bed with wee Jimmy Krankie!

From the Wyscout link posted it states the following : Therefore a full set of criteria are measured to calculate the xG, many of which have completely binary answers. However, the part I've highlighted seems very odd. I'm working on the assumption that the word 'Tagger' is some awful word used in place of what should probably be called the 'assessor' (I thought a 'tagger' was someone who tags local landmarks with their spray cans, ala Banksy?). Given that assumption (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), then the 'Tagger' is potentially a different person each time the xG is calculated. Given that every person on the planet has a different perception of risk and indeed 'danger', then this final point in the analysis tool is completely subjective. No idea what weighting is given to 'Tagger's' assessment of the danger but it seems very much 'stick your finger in the air and come up with a figure' to me. And some people think this is 'good science'

Any idea why 'Wyscout' (no idea who they are but they seem to think they are the dogs danglies when it comes to xG / xX), give an xG of 0 for all 'wide shots' - i.e. ALL SHOTS NOT ON TARGET! https://dataglossary.wyscout.com/xg/#:~:text=A penalty xG value is fixed to 0.76.&text=At the moment there are,an xG value of > 1. It's almost as if they agree about the probability and outcome being 0 Also, why are penalties given a fixed xG of 0.76 - does xG not learn based on previous outcomes and haven't we been told it's based on the outcomes of 'average' players?

Sadly, in life, there are no 'do overs'. The chances don't get to be 'replayed'

Why? Why aren't you inferring that the goalkeepers they have played against are absolute dog shit (aka Scottish)?

You're a weirdo! If a team has zero shots on target, the probability of scoring is zero. If a team has zero shots on target, the outcome will be zero goals. There is no confusion when the answer is zero both times.

Once upon a time, spotty teenagers had porn mags to get their rocks off over. Now it's whether or not a chance was high enough on the xG scale. Different times I guess.

City had ZERO shots on target. On another day, they still would not have scored if they don't hit the target.

Especially with our current ministers. Wouldn't trust them to mow the back garden without fucking it up.

Don't know why they didn't write it like that in the first place. Far catchier.

You've only listed one type... I'm assuming you've deliberately left out the second in a hilarious way of saying all others are stupid, yet you neglect to factor in a third group that can extrapolate information from data and still think it's shit. Lies, damned lies and statistics .....