EBS1980 Posted June 5 Posted June 5 West Ham after Sanchez from Chelsea. Worked under Potter at BHA. 1
Midfield_General Posted June 5 Posted June 5 10 hours ago, skintsaint said: Fuckin' hell, bring on the new season please. So much shit on every thread 😅 1
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 23 hours ago, Saint_clark said: The fact that you think XG should line up perfectly with the amount of goals scored shows why you don't understand it, but ironically the reason why this happens has already been presented by someone who you agree with. Let's say Saints are playing with Shane Long up top. He goes through on goal one on one with the keeper 10 times and misses all of them, including one moment where he goes round the keeper and has an empty net but hits the crossbar. Our XG would be quite high based off of those chances but our goals scored low (or nil) because his finishing is shit - but lots of players through history have regularly finished those chances. Our opposition on that day, City, have De Bruyne playing for them and he curls in a hattrick of long range screamers from angles and distances that players more often than not miss from. Other than that they don't create any other chances. The game ends up 3-0 to City but with us having a higher XG. I understand it well enough to know that it's a con. shouldn't line up perfectly but over a large sample of games it ought to. I understand it enough to know that it is closer to meaningless than reality. There was a game recently in which Chelsea were 5-0 ahead despite at that stage having an xG of well below 0.5. The extreme example that you give is a form of reductio ad absurdum but that can have its uses. It also shows the ineffectiveness of xG in this instance. Let's face it, it doesn't matter who we play in goal anyone with our Saint's defence in front of them is starting with an expected three goal deficit anyway. 1
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 23 hours ago, Saint_clark said: The fact that you think XG should line up perfectly with the amount of goals scored shows why you don't understand it, but ironically the reason why this happens has already been presented by someone who you agree with. Let's say Saints are playing with Shane Long up top. He goes through on goal one on one with the keeper 10 times and misses all of them, including one moment where he goes round the keeper and has an empty net but hits the crossbar. Our XG would be quite high based off of those chances but our goals scored low (or nil) because his finishing is shit - but lots of players through history have regularly finished those chances. Our opposition on that day, City, have De Bruyne playing for them and he curls in a hattrick of long range screamers from angles and distances that players more often than not miss from. Other than that they don't create any other chances. The game ends up 3-0 to City but with us having a higher XG. I understand it well enough to know that it's a con. shouldn't line up perfectly but over a large sample of games it ought to. I understand it enough to know that it is closer to meaningless than reality. There was a game recently in which Chelsea were 5-0 ahead despite at that stage having an xG of well below 0.5. The extreme example that you give is a form of reductio ad absurdum but that can have its uses. It also shows the ineffectiveness of xG in this instance. On 05/06/2025 at 09:17, Saint86 said: Sorry but statistical data is objective, or at worst and honest attempt at being as objective as its possible to be. Its the interpretation of data that is subjective. But is there a parallel universe i'm missing where data lies but a random scout's interpretation of a players finishing (insert other attribute) is entirely objective and factual - as opposed to not being remotely subjective based on that scout's own limited experience 😂? Also, what do you mean, "done from a video signal" - are we meant to be banning scouts from using video analysis now?! I really don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept/understand - if clubs want to look at a given player in a given league, then stats like xG (and conversion rates) can give them a broad overview of players that perform well at finishing criteria (as an example). It could similarly be progressive passing, interceptions, heading stats, ball carrying etc etc etc. Its not like they then don't go out and marry that up with traditional scouting work on identified players - it just lets them cast a wider net with less resources. At the end of the day, whoever reviews video footage, writes match reports, and/or reviews the data puts their own subjective stamp on it - you just have to hope they're suitably qualified to do that and to know why they're using those tools in the first instance. Let's face it, it doesn't matter who we play in goal anyone with our Saint's defence in front of them is starting with an expected three goal deficit anyway.
Saint86 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 Just now, Whitey Grandad said: I understand it well enough to know that it's a con. shouldn't line up perfectly but over a large sample of games it ought to. I understand it enough to know that it is closer to meaningless than reality. There was a game recently in which Chelsea were 5-0 ahead despite at that stage having an xG of well below 0.5. The extreme example that you give is a form of reductio ad absurdum but that can have its uses. It also shows the ineffectiveness of xG in this instance. Let's face it, it doesn't matter who we play in goal anyone with our Saint's defence in front of them is starting with an expected three goal deficit anyway. Edwards, THB, and Quarshie - we're going to be great next year 🤩 1
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 On 05/06/2025 at 09:17, Saint86 said: Sorry but statistical data is objective, or at worst and honest attempt at being as objective as its possible to be. Its the interpretation of data that is subjective. But is there a parallel universe i'm missing where data lies but a random scout's interpretation of a players finishing (insert other attribute) is entirely objective and factual - as opposed to not being remotely subjective based on that scout's own limited experience 😂? Also, what do you mean, "done from a video signal" - are we meant to be banning scouts from using video analysis now?! I really don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept/understand - if clubs want to look at a given player in a given league, then stats like xG (and conversion rates) can give them a broad overview of players that perform well at finishing criteria (as an example). It could similarly be progressive passing, interceptions, heading stats, ball carrying etc etc etc. Its not like they then don't go out and marry that up with traditional scouting work on identified players - it just lets them cast a wider net with less resources. At the end of the day, whoever reviews video footage, writes match reports, and/or reviews the data puts their own subjective stamp on it - you just have to hope they're suitably qualified to do that and to know why they're using those tools in the first instance. Of course xG is subjective. Somebody sits in front of a TV screen and decides whether an incident should have resulted in a goal. A different analyst would give a different interpretation. A video doesn't begin to show all the factors that can influence whether an attack can result in a goal.
Saint_clark Posted June 6 Posted June 6 57 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said: Of course xG is subjective. Somebody sits in front of a TV screen and decides whether an incident should have resulted in a goal. A different analyst would give a different interpretation. Whitey how many times FFS 😂 that is NOT. WHAT. HAPPENS. XG isn't an individuals belief of whether or not a chance SHOULD be scored. It's a representation of how often the chance HAS been scored in the past. Every single one of us would look at a player running past the keeper, 6 yards out on his stronger foot with an empty net and say "he should score". But those chances don't give 1 xG, in fact no chances give 1 xG. Why? Because it's based not on whether someone SHOULD score, but how often it HAS been scored. And people have missed those chances in the past. 1
CB Fry Posted June 6 Posted June 6 5 minutes ago, Saint_clark said: Whitey how many times FFS 😂 that is NOT. WHAT. HAPPENS. XG isn't an individuals belief of whether or not a chance SHOULD be scored. It's a representation of how often the chance HAS been scored in the past. Every single one of us would look at a player running past the keeper, 6 yards out on his stronger foot with an empty net and say "he should score". But those chances don't give 1 xG, in fact no chances give 1 xG. Why? Because it's based not on whether someone SHOULD score, but how often it HAS been scored. And people have missed those chances in the past. It's still a subjective act to decide what "that" chance is. People can chat shit about it all day but it is not objective empirical data. 3
Saint_clark Posted June 6 Posted June 6 8 minutes ago, CB Fry said: It's still a subjective act to decide what "that" chance is. People can chat shit about it all day but it is not objective empirical data. They don't just say "yeah that's roughly the same". They categorise chances based on the location of the shooter, strong/weak foot, ball in motion or stationary, player in motion or stationary... there's dozens and dozens of factors. I'm not even that big on the stat but a hell of a lot of research, statistical analysis and hard work has gone into developing it. It's not just a few blokes sitting in front of a TV saying "that looked a bit like that shot Haaland scored the other week". 2 1
Sheaf Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said: I understand it well enough Your entire posting history on the subject shows conclusively that you don't. 3
Gloucester Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Saint86 said: Edwards, THB, and Quarshie - we're going to be great next year 🤩 THB linked with Chelsea….no idea if the original source (Alex Goldberg) is reliable Edited June 6 by Gloucester Saint
sockeye Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said: THB linked with Chelsea….no idea if the original source (Alex Goldberg) is reliable They’ve got money. He’s still got years on his contract. Surely we stand firm and refuse to sell except for an exorbitant price. £50m should do it.
Gloucester Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 minute ago, sockeye said: They’ve got money. He’s still got years on his contract. Surely we stand firm and refuse to sell except for an exorbitant price. £50m should do it. Saw him linked with West Ham. I thought we’d get £30-35m but if Chelsea get involved that might push it up. That England cap and goal has helped.
skintsaint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 8 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said: THB linked with Chelsea….no idea if the original source (Alex Goldberg) is reliable Will join their very large band of men out on loan forever I expect... 1
Gloucester Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 minute ago, skintsaint said: Will join their very large band of men out on loan forever I expect... ‘Rack and Stack’. As long as we get a good fee and decent PSR profit I’m all for it.
Chez Posted June 6 Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, skintsaint said: Will join their very large band of men out on loan forever I expect... Chelsea are one of the few clubs with more centre backs than us, but perhaps they will sell a couple this summer?
Roo1976 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said: Of course xG is subjective. Somebody sits in front of a TV screen and decides whether an incident should have resulted in a goal. A different analyst would give a different interpretation. A video doesn't begin to show all the factors that can influence whether an attack can result in a goal. the same as VAR...........its different and subjective,somebody sits in front of a monitor and has an opinion on an incident................... 1
Midfield_General Posted June 6 Posted June 6 Is there anything in this thread that is actually about Aaron Ramsdale? 1 4
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said: Your entire posting history on the subject shows conclusively that you don't. Someone is being conned here and it isn't me.
benjii Posted June 6 Posted June 6 21 hours ago, EBS1980 said: West Ham after Sanchez from Chelsea. Worked under Potter at BHA.
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 hours ago, Saint_clark said: Whitey how many times FFS 😂 that is NOT. WHAT. HAPPENS. XG isn't an individuals belief of whether or not a chance SHOULD be scored. It's a representation of how often the chance HAS been scored in the past. Every single one of us would look at a player running past the keeper, 6 yards out on his stronger foot with an empty net and say "he should score". But those chances don't give 1 xG, in fact no chances give 1 xG. Why? Because it's based not on whether someone SHOULD score, but how often it HAS been scored. And people have missed those chances in the past. Good grief. Somebody, or some people, have to sit in front of a screen and allocate a value to that chance. More importantly, no two opportunities are ever the same or even similar. There are simply too many factors. To ignore or dismiss those is to oversimplify. 1
benjii Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, CB Fry said: It's still a subjective act to decide what "that" chance is. People can chat shit about it all day but it is not objective empirical data. Quite. I remember one of our home games this season where Sulemana missed an open goal from about two yards by running over a low cross. At half time our xG was about 0.2. Complete bullshit. 1
Dark Munster Posted June 6 Posted June 6 On 05/06/2025 at 00:10, Fabrice29 said: Martin has a history of proving idiots wrong. Yes, the idiots who hired him. 9
Sheaf Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 44 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said: Good grief. Somebody, or some people, have to sit in front of a screen and allocate a value to that chance. More importantly, no two opportunities are ever the same or even similar. There are simply too many factors. To ignore or dismiss those is to oversimplify. Yet another inadvertent but blatant admission that you have literally no idea how it actually works. It really is time you changed your avatar, because Einstein you are definitely not. How many times do you need to be told - It is not just someone looking at a screen and assigning a value FFS. What Is Expected Goals (xG)? | Opta Analyst
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Midfield_General said: Is there anything in this thread that is actually about Aaron Ramsdale? Ramsdale's xG is 0 for the season. 🙂 2
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 hours ago, skintsaint said: Will join their very large band of men out on loan forever I expect... All of the players Chelsea keep signing do turn up somewhere don't they? It's not some elaborate trafficking scam to keep Ronaldo in organs, to prolong his playing career?
Whitey Grandad Posted June 6 Posted June 6 32 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said: Yet another inadvertent but blatant admission that you have literally no idea how it actually works. It really is time you changed your avatar, because Einstein you are definitely not. How many times do you need to be told - It is not just someone looking at a screen and assigning a value FFS. What Is Expected Goals (xG)? | Opta Analyst "Our data scientists do" They would say that, wouldn't they. I maintain that their results show that they have their modelling wrong. This confirms what I have been saying, that the figures are subjective. Someone has created this 'model'. It's hocus pocus. Snake Oil of the purest form.
Wade Garrett Posted June 6 Posted June 6 4 hours ago, Saint_clark said: They don't just say "yeah that's roughly the same". They categorise chances based on the location of the shooter, strong/weak foot, ball in motion or stationary, player in motion or stationary... there's dozens and dozens of factors. I'm not even that big on the stat but a hell of a lot of research, statistical analysis and hard work has gone into developing it. It's not just a few blokes sitting in front of a TV saying "that looked a bit like that shot Haaland scored the other week". It’s total fucking bullshit pushed by some fucking SQL Wallah. 2
BarberSaint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said: Yet another inadvertent but blatant admission that you have literally no idea how it actually works. It really is time you changed your avatar, because Einstein you are definitely not. How many times do you need to be told - It is not just someone looking at a screen and assigning a value FFS. What Is Expected Goals (xG)? | Opta Analyst I'm not especially interested in this subject and think we'll sell Ramsdale for what we allegedly paid for him. But those paragraphs aren't really anything other than marketing spiel: they don't prove anything (other than a lot of people are very similar in disposition to R A).
Weston Super Saint Posted June 6 Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: Ramsdale's xG is 0 for the season. 🙂 If it is, then it's wrong! Goalkeepers have scored from goal kicks in the past so every goal kick should have a greater than 0 xG as a result... 1
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: If it is, then it's wrong! Goalkeepers have scored from goal kicks in the past so every goal kick should have a greater than 0 xG as a result... 🙂 Didn't expect to be doing a follow up post... Yes, goalkeepers have...excuse me a moment , Weston... @Whitey Grandad, you can just skip this as it's doing nothing to change your mind... Yes, goalkeepers have scored. Data analysts have missed a trick in focusing on PSxG SOT and GA, instead of goalies shooting attributes. I'd not be totally surprised to find that SR do measure it as part of their Zany Leftfield Purchase Pack. 🙂 The random site I checked xG zero against before posting (I did look believe it or not) gave nothing for xG. I guess they don't consider them shots on target as such, from a goalkick. But did give his assists in xA https://understat.com/player/5603 1
Matthew Le God Posted Monday at 13:40 Posted Monday at 13:40 7 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said: Would you not agree a permanent transfer is better than this loan shite? If it ends up being an obligation to buy, then that is effectively the same as a transfer. Saints can spend the money as it is guaranteed future income. We don't know what will or won't be agreed in the deal yet. 1
Lee On Solent Saint Posted Monday at 13:52 Posted Monday at 13:52 9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said: If it ends up being an obligation to buy, then that is effectively the same as a transfer. Saints can spend the money as it is guaranteed future income. We don't know what will or won't be agreed in the deal yet. Then why dress it up as a loan? What's the point? Either way he's not playing for us again. Guess it's another clever way of avoiding the PSR circus.
qwertyell Posted Monday at 13:55 Posted Monday at 13:55 Don't really understand it from a Newcastle perspective. Ramsdale is really no better than Nick Pope - he's not an obvious upgrade, just more of the same: a perfectly serviceable keeper who has his good moments but isn't quite at the top level. Hey ho. He was always going somewhere I suppose. I'd like to think the club have seen this coming from a long way back and have contingency plans well in place regarding a replacement. I'd like to think that. 1
Matthew Le God Posted Monday at 13:56 Posted Monday at 13:56 3 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said: Then why dress it up as a loan? What's the point? Either way he's not playing for us again. Guess it's another clever way of avoiding the PSR circus. You've answered your own questions.
beatlesaint Posted Monday at 14:00 Posted Monday at 14:00 3 minutes ago, qwertyell said: Don't really understand it from a Newcastle perspective. Ramsdale is really no better than Nick Pope - he's not an obvious upgrade, just more of the same: a perfectly serviceable keeper who has his good moments but isn't quite at the top level. Hey ho. He was always going somewhere I suppose. I'd like to think the club have seen this coming from a long way back and have contingency plans well in place regarding a replacement. I'd like to think that. To be honest I dont understand it, I would put Pope and Ramsdale on a par. One of them is gonna be very unhappy sat on the bench for everything bar FA Cup and League Cup games.
Le Timmier Posted Monday at 14:04 Posted Monday at 14:04 3 minutes ago, beatlesaint said: To be honest I dont understand it, I would put Pope and Ramsdale on a par. One of them is gonna be very unhappy sat on the bench for everything bar FA Cup and League Cup games. This article gives some additional insight. (Basically that Pope has a somewhat iffy injury record) Aaron Ramsdale transfer news: Newcastle in talks with Southampton for goalkeeper | Football News | Sky Sports 1
Badger Posted Monday at 14:13 Posted Monday at 14:13 19 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said: Then why dress it up as a loan? What's the point? Either way he's not playing for us again. Guess it's another clever way of avoiding the PSR circus. What is exactly is the advantage for Newcastle in going for a loan ? Apart from handing him back if he’s crap. We’re not talking mega money going into or from this years accounts.
Matthew Le God Posted Monday at 14:27 Posted Monday at 14:27 17 minutes ago, Badger said: But why can we not go out and buy a GK, experienced and made for the first team, not another ‘might come good’ protege ? GK is not a position to piss around with. Seriously wonder about our club and the people involved. 15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said: Spors...Same shit different day??? What are you blaming him for? They haven't sold or loaned him yet. Let alone have we seen the financial terms or if a new 1st choice is signed.
Colinjb Posted Monday at 14:37 Posted Monday at 14:37 As long as the finances are reasonable, Ramsdale leaves with my blessing. His signing was a great highlight of last year and he didn't disgrace himself in the most inept Saints side in history. Good luck to him. But, this is contingent on us signing someone else. Bazunu is completely atrocious. 4
Eric The Red Posted Monday at 14:39 Posted Monday at 14:39 21 minutes ago, S-Clarke said: From our POV we save on wages for a year, and we get an upfront fee as a loan, which I believe will class as direct income as it's not directly linked to any profit made on him - and he'd still be on our books as owned by us. Yes any loan fee is straight income but we do have to charge a quarter of the fee we paid Arsenal to the accounts this year so the loan fee needs to be at least that for us to break even for this season.
Scummer Posted Monday at 15:14 Posted Monday at 15:14 Very strange that we played Ramsdale for 90 minutes on Saturday if he's about to leave. 1
ally_uk Posted Monday at 15:21 Posted Monday at 15:21 (edited) Do Newcastle have any players that could do a job for us on loan ? Players on the fringes of first team I also agree what Turkish said about Premier league, it's a circus. 🎪 Edited Monday at 15:22 by ally_uk
Lighthouse Posted Monday at 15:22 Posted Monday at 15:22 1 minute ago, ally_uk said: Do Newcastle have any players that could do a job for us on loan ? Players on the fringes of first team I’m hearing from my sources that Isak wants out. 4
Wurzel Posted Monday at 15:24 Posted Monday at 15:24 1 minute ago, Lighthouse said: I’m hearing from my sources that Isak wants out. What's he like in goal? 3
Billy the Kidd Posted Monday at 15:33 Posted Monday at 15:33 9 minutes ago, Wurzel said: What's he like in goal? Better than Bazunu. 2 4
Wade Garrett Posted Monday at 15:38 Posted Monday at 15:38 Newcastle are just about to get a load of cash from Liverpool, so why would we consider helping out a club with an oil-rich state behind them. Tell them to put their hands in their pockets or no deal. We also cannot consider starting Bazunu, under any circumstances. 1
Lighthouse Posted Monday at 15:42 Posted Monday at 15:42 2 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said: Newcastle are just about to get a load of cash from Liverpool, so why would we consider helping out a club with an oil-rich state behind them. Tell them to put their hands in their pockets or no deal. We also cannot consider starting Bazunu, under any circumstances. What makes you think we haven’t? If we got £15m+ for Sully, I doubt we’re donating one of our best players to Oxfam. 1
revolution saint Posted Monday at 15:53 Posted Monday at 15:53 I reckon it'd be really funny to kid Eddie Howe into thinking he's signing Ramsdale only to swap him out for Ryan Fraser at the last minute.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now