Aaron Ramsdale

[chivvy]

He still shite .. just earning a lot more money

[BarberSaint]

7 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

Could be the biggest.key transfer decision we make in who we replace him with .. I seriously hope we won’t go back to bazunu as pretty much any shot on target results in a goal.. hate to think how bad it could have been with him in the premiership 😂😂

 

 

Goal difference of minus 250?

[SaintsBarry74]

7 hours ago, sockeye said:

Ramsdale was always nailed on to leave. Sadly I think Bazunu will be kept as first choice.

If Baz hadn’t got injured, I genuinely believe we wouldn’t have been promoted. The man made every shot on target feel like a penalty.

He set a league record for the worst negative xG on record, and was on course to do the same again the following season - with 9 or 10 games still to play, against weaker opposition, no less.

It would be sheer negligence by the club if Baz returns as our first-choice keeper.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, SaintsBarry74 said:

If Baz hadn’t got injured, I genuinely believe we wouldn’t have been promoted. The man made every shot on target feel like a penalty.

He set a league record for the worst negative xG on record, and was on course to do the same again the following season - with 9 or 10 games still to play, against weaker opposition, no less.

It would be sheer negligence by the club if Baz returns as our first-choice keeper.

What the hell is 'negative xG' ?

Whatever it is it has nothing to do with football.

He wasn't brilliant but he was nowhere near as bad as you make him out to have been. He was an important part of a team that finished in the playoffs. 

[Saint_clark]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What the hell is 'negative xG' ?

Whatever it is it has nothing to do with football.

He wasn't brilliant but he was nowhere near as bad as you make him out to have been. He was an important part of a team that finished in the playoffs. 

It means he conceded more goals that keepers would generally be expected to save than any other keeper in the league. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

8 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What the hell is 'negative xG' ?

Whatever it is it has nothing to do with football.

He wasn't brilliant but he was nowhere near as bad as you make him out to have been. He was an important part of a team that finished in the playoffs. 

I think that’s the point being made…thankfully he wasn’t a part of the 1st team that finished in the playoffs. We may well have seen a better final league position had it not been for Baz’s poor GK record (not that he was entirely to blame of course).

[Midfield_General]

I think what’s most likely with Bazunu is that the new manager will watch him, assess him and decide whether he wants to pick him or not. If he doesn’t want to pick him, he’ll probably brief the signing of a replacement who he thinks is better. Just a hunch though. 

[goodymatt]

It is clear that Bazunu has been bottom of the ‘conceding goals you shouldn’t be conceding’ tables for 2 straight seasons, despite dropping into a lower league. He was still only saving close to every other shot in Belgium before he got injured, his worst save percentage of his career to date (54.6%). The sample size is big enough to know he’s not ready to be our number 1, if we want to be challenging for the top 2. His excellent ball playing skills are less useful to us in a Will Still system than a Martin one, so it should be very clear to Will that a new GK is a high priority. He is used to setting up teams to concede fewer than expected, we will not achieve that with Bazunu as our first choice keeper. I know not all posters value data as it can be misleading but whether it is data or my own eyes, they are agreeing on this one. The lack of takers for his loan this season speaks volumes.

[S-Clarke]

13 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What the hell is 'negative xG' ?

Whatever it is it has nothing to do with football.

He wasn't brilliant but he was nowhere near as bad as you make him out to have been. He was an important part of a team that finished in the playoffs. 

He certainly was as bad as people make him out to be, he's terrible. We don't need stats to tell us what we can see with our own eyes though, and we all saw how bad he was in plain sight, however the stats do allow us to rubber stamp our opinions and stick a cherry on top if anyone doubted their own judgements.

He cannot be trusted as a competent GK.

Edited Tuesday at 12:42 by S-Clarke

[pimpin4rizeal]

5 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

He certainly was as bad as people make him out to be, he's terrible. We don't need stats to tell us what we can see with our own eyes though, and we all saw how bad he was in plain sight, however the stats do allow us to rubber stamp our opinions and stick a cherry on top if anyone doubted their own judgements.

He cannot be trusted as a competent GK.

Absolutely. As crap as we where this season ramsdale made tons of good saves and kept the scores more respectable he’s one that can walk away with some credit from last season .. Bazunu on the other hand in the championship let in piss weak shots on a weekly basis . Its almost like playing with a handicap having him in goal he makes McCarthy look like Shilton. Hopefully the ridicolous idea of him playing every week left with Martin 

[Saint NL]

https://talksport.com/football/premier-league/3259056/west-ham-transfer-news-aaron-ramsdale-southampton/

£20m to west ham. 

[Badger]

12 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

https://talksport.com/football/premier-league/3259056/west-ham-transfer-news-aaron-ramsdale-southampton/

£20m to west ham. 

Not sure how accurate their figures are:

Ramsdale won’t come cheap, though, with Southampton hoping for £20million in exchange for a player they paid £18m for just under a year ago.

 

Thought we’d paid more than that from reports seen at the time. 

[Lighthouse]

Well, it’s Talksport so now we know he’s definitely not going to West Ham.

[skintsaint]

48 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not sure how accurate their figures are:

Ramsdale won’t come cheap, though, with Southampton hoping for £20million in exchange for a player they paid £18m for just under a year ago.

 

Thought we’d paid more than that from reports seen at the time. 

https://talksport.com/football/2025506/aaron-ramsdale-transfer-fee-confirmed-arsenal-southampton/

[Badger]

6 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

https://talksport.com/football/2025506/aaron-ramsdale-transfer-fee-confirmed-arsenal-southampton/

Okay thanks for posting that. I don't recall that figure only the £20m upwards figures.

Wonder if we have to pay any 'add-ons' to Arsenal instead of the uplift for staying up. 

Edited Tuesday at 19:39 by Badger

[skintsaint]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Okay thanks for posting that. I don't recall that figure only the £20m upwards figures.

Wonder if we have to pay any 'add-ons' to Arsenal instead of the uplift for staying up. 

Oh I mean thats were talksport probably got their figure from in the latest West Ham link, I'm pretty sure it was £20m too.

[WinglessWonder]

That's West Ham getting relegated then.... 🤣🤣

[Whitey Grandad]

On 03/06/2025 at 01:48, Saint_clark said:

It means he conceded more goals that keepers would generally be expected to save than any other keeper in the league. 

I know what it's supposed to mean but as statistics go it's as meaningless and arbitrary as it could be. It's all down to the interpretation and bias of the person making up the figures. 

[Saint_clark]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I know what it's supposed to mean but as statistics go it's as meaningless and arbitrary as it could be. It's all down to the interpretation and bias of the person making up the figures. 

It's absolutely not, how many times do we need to go through this. They calculate the likelihood of a chance being scored based on how many times similar chances have been scored throughout the past. Nothing to do with whether you or I or Bob Statman thinks it should be scored. 

It's why a penalty isn't 1xg, because although we all think they SHOULD score, plenty of them are missed.

[BarberSaint]

5 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

It's absolutely not, how many times do we need to go through this. They calculate the likelihood of a chance being scored based on how many times similar chances have been scored throughout the past. Nothing to do with whether you or I or Bob Statman thinks it should be scored. 

It's why a penalty isn't 1xg, because although we all think they SHOULD score, plenty of them are missed.

 

Apart from the fact that there are too many variables to take into account and that ultimately they have one variable they can't really do anything with. The same chance presented to Shane Long 100 times in the same way wouldn't give the same outcomes as if it was given to Haaland, all other factors somehow being recognised and controlled so that all you would measure would be the taking of the chance. When actually, what you're doing is measuring the footballer so they haven't even measured the right thing. It has no validity, is subjective at best and has no more merit than Lord D saying 'He has crisp packet wrists'. Plainly he doesn't - they're cheese strings.

[Fabrice29]

20 minutes ago, BarberSaint said:

 

Apart from the fact that there are too many variables to take into account and that ultimately they have one variable they can't really do anything with. The same chance presented to Shane Long 100 times in the same way wouldn't give the same outcomes as if it was given to Haaland, all other factors somehow being recognised and controlled so that all you would measure would be the taking of the chance. When actually, what you're doing is measuring the footballer so they haven't even measured the right thing. It has no validity, is subjective at best and has no more merit than Lord D saying 'He has crisp packet wrists'. Plainly he doesn't - they're cheese strings.

You’re very close to getting it but yet so far btw 🤣

As for the Grandad chap, he’s consistently on here refusing to try to understand Xg because it’s new, so not sure that’s a winnable situation at all. Think he’s still refusing to understand how the new tickets work as well. 

[Saint_clark]

1 hour ago, BarberSaint said:

 

Apart from the fact that there are too many variables to take into account and that ultimately they have one variable they can't really do anything with. The same chance presented to Shane Long 100 times in the same way wouldn't give the same outcomes as if it was given to Haaland, all other factors somehow being recognised and controlled so that all you would measure would be the taking of the chance. When actually, what you're doing is measuring the footballer so they haven't even measured the right thing. It has no validity, is subjective at best and has no more merit than Lord D saying 'He has crisp packet wrists'. Plainly he doesn't - they're cheese strings.

Indeed, but XG by itself isn't used as a tool to measure a player's finishing ability. Of course the same chance presented to Long and to Haaland would result in two different outcomes, but the stat measures the likelihood that the specific situation resulted in a goal, regardless of who was taking the shot. 

The way you then apply that to a player's finishing is you compare their actual goals scored to their XG. Shane Long as an example you used, his goals scored would be much lower than his XG throughout his career as he would miss a lot of chances that lots of other strikers would finish. 

And in the case of this thread the way you apply it to judging a keeper is whether their XG faced is higher or lower than goals conceded. In the Prem Bazunu ended up conceding something like 18 goals more than the stats would have predicted him to - which has one of two explanations. Either Bazunu faced significantly more world class, unstoppable shots than any other keeper on the league whilst our defence simultaneously gave away very few easy chances, or he let in more chances that should have been saved than any other keeper in the league. 

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, BarberSaint said:

 

Apart from the fact that there are too many variables to take into account and that ultimately they have one variable they can't really do anything with. The same chance presented to Shane Long 100 times in the same way wouldn't give the same outcomes as if it was given to Haaland, all other factors somehow being recognised and controlled so that all you would measure would be the taking of the chance. When actually, what you're doing is measuring the footballer so they haven't even measured the right thing. It has no validity, is subjective at best and has no more merit than Lord D saying 'He has crisp packet wrists'. Plainly he doesn't - they're cheese strings.

What?!?! Its pretty much what you're describing - a tool to review how someone like Haaland's (and assumed better finisher for your example) has a higher xG conversion rate in comparison to another player in the same league, i.e. vs someone like Shane Long (and assumed poorer finisher in this example). That's all it is, a metric to showcase how well strikers get themselves into goalscoring chances in matches under a given manager / tactical setup, and then how well they convert those chances vs similar players.

I daresay that clubs have access to more detailed data, such as xGs and conversion rates in different areas of the pitch / different feet, heading etc.

In the same as they'll have their own way to measure "progressive passing", and then highlight who can do it successfully.

Is xG the be all and end all? Obviously not - as with all stats, it comes down to how the user makes use of the data. But frankly anyone who just decides to ignore the available data is either a superbly intuitive scout, or is just being foolish imo.

Edited Wednesday at 15:21 by Saint86

[Turkish]

On 03/06/2025 at 01:16, Whitey Grandad said:

What the hell is 'negative xG' ?

Whatever it is it has nothing to do with football.

He wasn't brilliant but he was nowhere near as bad as you make him out to have been. He was an important part of a team that finished in the playoffs. 

It means he’s shit 

[BarberSaint]

Statistically, if you're talking real statistics as a subset of mathematics, not any old crap that is put under the label of "Statistics, if I use the word it makes me look clever",  you have to account for variables, variance, ensure that your statistical sampling methods and methodology are valid and unbiased and relevant.  As Haaland =/= Long just as Haaland =/= Yoshida =/= Ramsdale and bar the first two they are sufficiently different to argue that you are not comparing bananas but cars and penguins then you've not really put yourself in a position to prove anything meaningful other than how you've decided to measure what you've decided to measure and how you've chosen to present it shows you're an idiot. You could state that you've measured a number of footballers, ignoring specialism which in this sample is based very much on natural aptitude, and can see which one is better and to what degree in what way but you can't say that the chance presented taking into account (how many variables, in which way are they measured, how are they weighted, what do you do when you have differing variables and so you can't measure exactly like for like, etc) the variables has a weight of 'x' which is what they're trying to show. The methodology is far too simplistic and the reality far too complicated e.g. one factor might be that SL was pissed off because someone farted in the dressing room, this affected his mental state somewhat and so he swung his foot too quickly at a ball he would have swung his foot at quickly had it been Tuesday.  Mental state is a very big factor in sport and that can change throughout a game and directly affects performance. So either you measure to the nth degree or you just state in very general terms 'that was a good chance and anyone but Che Evans would have buried that open goal'. As a matter of interest, how many of the sample sizes of exactly that chance do the 'statisticians' have and how many of them have a forward managing to get their hand in the way of their head?

You show me how it's measured and accounted for and at the precise moment that the chance presented itself and how that is replicable in order to then be able to be reproduced and then counted and in proper statistical terms (not counting, which a lot of people seem to think is statistics) made of relevance. You could do that to an extent with one person as they're the constant and you remove a lot of the variation but if you do it one day and it's windier than the last when you took your previous sample unless you account for the wind when taking into account accuracy of heading from crosses you've not measured the same thing. Not ignoring that the sun got in their eyes, or ..., or ...

[chiknsmack]

17 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I know what it's supposed to mean but as statistics go it's as meaningless and arbitrary as it could be. It's all down to the interpretation and bias of the person making up the figures. 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

15 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

It's absolutely not, how many times do we need to go through this. They calculate the likelihood of a chance being scored based on how many times similar chances have been scored throughout the past. Nothing to do with whether you or I or Bob Statman thinks it should be scored. 

It's why a penalty isn't 1xg, because although we all think they SHOULD score, plenty of them are missed.

You could not be more wrong.

It's completely subjective.  And done from a video signal no less.

'Similar chances'? Who compares the similarities? It's all bollocks. 

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

You’re very close to getting it but yet so far btw 🤣

As for the Grandad chap, he’s consistently on here refusing to try to understand Xg because it’s new, so not sure that’s a winnable situation at all. Think he’s still refusing to understand how the new tickets work as well. 

Don't you dare try to patronise me you little bead of naivety. 

Xg is meaningless. That's why it's never been used before. 

I know perfectly well how electronic tickets are supposed to work. They will work most of the time, just like any modern technology.  But the time will come when they don't. 

[Whitey Grandad]

8 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

Indeed, but XG by itself isn't used as a tool to measure a player's finishing ability. Of course the same chance presented to Long and to Haaland would result in two different outcomes, but the stat measures the likelihood that the specific situation resulted in a goal, regardless of who was taking the shot. 

The way you then apply that to a player's finishing is you compare their actual goals scored to their XG. Shane Long as an example you used, his goals scored would be much lower than his XG throughout his career as he would miss a lot of chances that lots of other strikers would finish. 

And in the case of this thread the way you apply it to judging a keeper is whether their XG faced is higher or lower than goals conceded. In the Prem Bazunu ended up conceding something like 18 goals more than the stats would have predicted him to - which has one of two explanations. Either Bazunu faced significantly more world class, unstoppable shots than any other keeper on the league whilst our defence simultaneously gave away very few easy chances, or he let in more chances that should have been saved than any other keeper in the league. 

Or that the figures are completely random.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, Turkish said:

It means he’s shit 

He's nowhere near the best, and he's not the worst.

Whichever, we need better.

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, BarberSaint said:

Statistically, if you're talking real statistics as a subset of mathematics, not any old crap that is put under the label of "Statistics, if I use the word it makes me look clever",  you have to account for variables, variance, ensure that your statistical sampling methods and methodology are valid and unbiased and relevant.  As Haaland =/= Long just as Haaland =/= Yoshida =/= Ramsdale and bar the first two they are sufficiently different to argue that you are not comparing bananas but cars and penguins then you've not really put yourself in a position to prove anything meaningful other than how you've decided to measure what you've decided to measure and how you've chosen to present it shows you're an idiot. You could state that you've measured a number of footballers, ignoring specialism which in this sample is based very much on natural aptitude, and can see which one is better and to what degree in what way but you can't say that the chance presented taking into account (how many variables, in which way are they measured, how are they weighted, what do you do when you have differing variables and so you can't measure exactly like for like, etc) the variables has a weight of 'x' which is what they're trying to show. The methodology is far too simplistic and the reality far too complicated e.g. one factor might be that SL was pissed off because someone farted in the dressing room, this affected his mental state somewhat and so he swung his foot too quickly at a ball he would have swung his foot at quickly had it been Tuesday.  Mental state is a very big factor in sport and that can change throughout a game and directly affects performance. So either you measure to the nth degree or you just state in very general terms 'that was a good chance and anyone but Che Evans would have buried that open goal'. As a matter of interest, how many of the sample sizes of exactly that chance do the 'statisticians' have and how many of them have a forward managing to get their hand in the way of their head?

You show me how it's measured and accounted for and at the precise moment that the chance presented itself and how that is replicable in order to then be able to be reproduced and then counted and in proper statistical terms (not counting, which a lot of people seem to think is statistics) made of relevance. You could do that to an extent with one person as they're the constant and you remove a lot of the variation but if you do it one day and it's windier than the last when you took your previous sample unless you account for the wind when taking into account accuracy of heading from crosses you've not measured the same thing. Not ignoring that the sun got in their eyes, or ..., or ...

Exactly!

Far too many variables. 

And here's one for the real statisticians.  Why, after a match, does the xG differ so much from the actual number of goals? There will be some who will try to say that the difference is meaningful and that useful information can be gleaned from it. But the same is often said about tealeaves. Or chicken entrails. 

[Fabrice29]

7 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Don't you dare try to patronise me you little bead of naivety. 

Xg is meaningless. That's why it's never been used before. 

I know perfectly well how electronic tickets are supposed to work. They will work most of the time, just like any modern technology.  But the time will come when they don't. 

Don’t give me stuff to patronise you about then…stop saying really stupid stuff about things you don’t understand. It’s okay not to get it and it’s okay to not comment on it if you don’t. 

7 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And here's one for the real statisticians.  Why, after a match, does the xG differ so much from the actual number of goals? 

See! You make it far too easy. Anyway, glad you’ve managed to get inside the ground now. 

[Weston Super Saint]

23 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

It's absolutely not, how many times do we need to go through this. They calculate the likelihood of a chance being scored based on how many times similar chances have been scored throughout the past. Nothing to do with whether you or I or Bob Statman thinks it should be scored. 

It's why a penalty isn't 1xg, because although we all think they SHOULD score, plenty of them are missed.

Plus throw in the subjective assesment of the 'tagger'...

[tdmickey3]

17 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Don’t give me stuff to patronise you about then…stop saying really stupid stuff about things you don’t understand. It’s okay not to get it and it’s okay to not comment on it if you don’t. 

See! You make it far too easy. Anyway, glad you’ve managed to get inside the ground now. 

Classic Irony 

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Classic Irony 

You don’t need two capitals for that. Stupid. 

[Wade Garrett]

xG has made some companies and people a lot of money.  It is marketing at its best and plenty of gullible people have been hoodwinked by it.

I’m with Whitey, it’s largely irrelevant.

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

You don’t need two capitals for that. Stupid. 

You need a comma for that, cretin

Have you been on the Rangers forums yet, infesting it with your nonsense

[Fabrice29]

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

You need a comma for that, cretin

Have you been on the Rangers forums yet, infesting it with your nonsense

Only if I was specifically calling you stupid, stupid.

Yep. I’ve been posting your ‘we won’t get promoted under Martin’ posts and telling them Martin has a history of proving idiots wrong. 

[skintsaint]

Fuckin' hell, bring on the new season please. So much shit on every thread 😅

[Doctoroncall]

7 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Or that the figures are completely random.

Randomness is a key principle of statistics. 
 

It seems all the commentators are interested in is how the match (a sample) compared to the population (all matches) in quality of chances which gives you a number to discuss rather than discussing what happened in the match (the clubs may use it more appropriately in their coaching). 
 

As with any statistical modelling, there will be flaws and limitations and it’s important to work within those boundaries and not extrapolate!

[tdmickey3]

10 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Only if I was specifically calling you stupid, stupid.

Yep. I’ve been posting your ‘we won’t get promoted under Martin’ posts and telling them Martin has a history of proving idiots wrong. 

Lol, you were telling everyone everyday over and over that it would all be fine under Martin, cretinous.

I can only imagine being so wrong, so often is hurting nearly as much as your loss is .

 

[Saint86]

9 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You could not be more wrong.

It's completely subjective.  And done from a video signal no less.

'Similar chances'? Who compares the similarities? It's all bollocks. 

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.

Edited yesterday at 08:18 by Saint86

[coalman]

One of the biggest mistakes made with statistics is in blindly looking at numbers without seeking to understand why. One of the (many) flaws of xG is it doesn't say what led to the goal scoring opportunity. Blindly following correlations is the road the Rasmus appears to have led us down. For example - looking at Nathan Jones stats you could have said he was an up and coming manager who was likely to overperform. Talking to him for more than a few minutes (or watching any interview after a match) would tell you he's an utter loon.

Brighton clearly have a well functioning data science team which is why they're currently punching so far above their weight but that is in support of an effective scouting network and decision making process not a replacement for it. Whether that's a short term anomaly or something they can maintain in the face of the talent drain from the big clubs in the Premier League remains to be seen.

Our data science team appears to consist of Rasmus looking at outliers in a spreadsheet and assuming that one thing implies another. A clown with a spreadsheet is still a clown.

xG is something that may be useful to sanity check an approach (a team that totally underperforms xG may not be as bad as people think and a team that totally overperforms xG may well be worse than people think). But, if you go back through last season the xG completely backs up the results we saw on the pitch (in fact we may have been lucky to get 12 points). The use would be to sanity check what you think you're seeing rather than as the source of truth for decisions as it doesn't tell us what we need to change. It's also a measure of average performance where the variance or confidence interval is not published. I've found that someone coming to me and telling me they're managing against an average is usually a sign that I'm going to be handing that person a P45.

To give a better example to explain our last season - if you looked at the number of clear cut chances we gave up due to fucking about at the back. That would have been a much better metric to manage against - it told us why we struggled to keep clean sheets. Or the number of clearcut chances we created. Not only did we invite our opponents to score but weren't creating anywhere near the chances to make up for it. Without the why you can't really know what to do. More alarmingly Martin appears to be all about possession which doesn't even have positive correlation with results on the pitch. 

Analysing data is clearly an area where Southampton FC are weak relative to our peers in an era where it can make a positive impact.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

With add-ons, his purchase was apparently nearer £25m so any sale below that would represent a loss. And are we desperate to sell? He could be one of the spine to get the club promoted and next time keep us in the premier league. And that would solve the Baz problem - because let's face it, he is a problem!

[Miltonaggro]

25 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

With add-ons, his purchase was apparently nearer £25m so any sale below that would represent a loss. And are we desperate to sell? He could be one of the spine to get the club promoted and next time keep us in the premier league. And that would solve the Baz problem - because let's face it, he is a problem!

In modern football, with agent pressure, you'd think that there is absolutely no chance as it would be a bigger coup for Saints than signing him in the first place.  To have any chance at all, his money would have to stay the same, and him and Will Still would have to gel pretty much from day one, with Still stating that his team will be built around Ramsdale.  It's the same situation with Fernandes in many ways, with the main difference being Ramsdale's career stage and personality - he has one, unusual for a top footballer these days.. I think that part of him relating to Saints, which led to his decision to be our number one week in week out is that his boyhood hero is Jussi Jaaskelainen at Bolton, so there does seem to be an awareness of football life outside the big franchise clubs.  However, unlikely that his agent would feel the same way.   

Edited yesterday at 09:16 by Miltonaggro

[sockeye]

1 hour ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

With add-ons, his purchase was apparently nearer £25m so any sale below that would represent a loss. And are we desperate to sell? He could be one of the spine to get the club promoted and next time keep us in the premier league. And that would solve the Baz problem - because let's face it, he is a problem!

I would love him to stay but I just don’t want my heart broken. To be honest, I was resigned to relegation last summer. But when we signed him, it was almost a little frustrating as I knew that he would be out the door as soon as we went down. At that point a little spark inside me ignited and I wanted us to stay up. I believe he would honestly be a part of a theoretical late 2020s Saints European squad. He’s just class and it’s a shame we can’t provide him with teammates on his level of quality

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

With add-ons, his purchase was apparently nearer £25m so any sale below that would represent a loss. And are we desperate to sell? He could be one of the spine to get the club promoted and next time keep us in the premier league. And that would solve the Baz problem - because let's face it, he is a problem!

He's been constantly linked away and is on a huge wage. Bye bye. 

[Saint_clark]

11 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Exactly!

Far too many variables. 

And here's one for the real statisticians.  Why, after a match, does the xG differ so much from the actual number of goals? There will be some who will try to say that the difference is meaningful and that useful information can be gleaned from it. But the same is often said about tealeaves. Or chicken entrails. 

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. 

[Charlie Wayman]

2 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

 

 

[Chez]

4 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

So talking about Ramsdale....wouldn't it be something if we could retain his services? He not only kept the score respectable on many occasions, didn't pull off a couple of great saves against Everton - a game we wouldn't have won without him.

With add-ons, his purchase was apparently nearer £25m so any sale below that would represent a loss. And are we desperate to sell? He could be one of the spine to get the club promoted and next time keep us in the premier league. And that would solve the Baz problem - because let's face it, he is a problem!

I'd say he is our most valuable player. Any replacement we get in the championship is going to be a massive downgrade. We wont want to sell him, but he wont want to play in the championship. He's too good to play at that level. There are going to buyers and if there is a relegation clause or say £20m, then we will have no control. I think you have to accept that he wont be here, no matter how much you want him to be.