Aaron Ramsdale

[EBS1980]

West Ham after Sanchez from Chelsea. 
 

Worked under Potter at BHA.

[Midfield_General]

10 hours ago, skintsaint said:

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

 

[Whitey Grandad]

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. 

[Whitey Grandad]

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]

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 🤩

[Whitey Grandad]

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]

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. 

[CB Fry]

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.

[Saint_clark]

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". 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I understand it well enough 

Your entire posting history on the subject shows conclusively that you don't.

[Gloucester Saint]

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 11 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[sockeye]

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]

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]

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...

[Gloucester Saint]

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]

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]

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...................

[Midfield_General]

Is there anything in this thread that is actually about Aaron Ramsdale? 

[Whitey Grandad]

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]

21 hours ago, EBS1980 said:

West Ham after Sanchez from Chelsea. 
 

Worked under Potter at BHA.

[Whitey Grandad]

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. 

[benjii]

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.

[Dark Munster]

On 05/06/2025 at 00:10, Fabrice29 said:

Martin has a history of proving idiots wrong. 

Yes, the idiots who hired him. 

[Sheaf Saint]

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]

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. 🙂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

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]

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]

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.

[BarberSaint]

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]

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...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

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