Hmm. I'm not saying you are wrong; but I thought Watford were very poor in their execution against Palace and extremely poor against Norwich. So I don't know about negative, just bad quality play whatever they were trying. I see Championship players in too many positions and they just can't do it. I believe organising defensive set-ups is supposed to be the least difficult managerial task and Roy has set about improving this aspect. (And succeeding, in a relative sense). But we do need to improve our chances of scoring, yes. I find it very frustrating watching the hesitant attacking, with poor final balls and poor decision making, so often. He has to try and tackle that problem, as well.
Who cares? Playing well is irrelevant if it gets you no points. On this analysis, “performance bias” also exists but, unlike this, that has no impact on the league table.
Does it not show just how powerful most of the teams are, with just a few not able to keep up with them?
It depends how many games/observations remain. Over a 38 game season the overall level of performance will determine where you end up, not whether you get lucky in a particular game. If an F1 driver takes pole, sets fastest lap but gets an engine blow out and zero points, he has a better expected overall outcome than a guy who plods to 4th in that particular race. The result is only all important when there are minimal observations remaining.
Does it not depend what your assessment criteria are? The outcome could be said to be what actually happened. Whereas whether we played well is more subjective. There are those who would say that the result is what matters. (And , by the way, I thought we were much better today than against Palace, which was disastrous). (That's not to say we were good - just better.)
Surely the result is the only important factor at any point. This sounds suspiciously like the ******** that is “expected goals”.
Well if we play like we did today over the next 12 games, we probably pick up zero points. Consistent performances breeds consistent points
xG is very helpful. Which is why every club uses some form of it. Even Sean Dyche said it’s really useful last week
I have no idea what “expected goals” means either. If you score a goal, it’s a goal. If you don’t, it isn’t. Presumabky United won easily on this statistic today. Except they didn’t.
The result isn’t all important because it’s only one observation out of many. And your performance is an indicator to the outcome of other observations. Most obvious recent example was Wolves. Zero points after 3 games but played well in all of them. And now they are pushing for Europe. If you were results orientated you would conclude that Wolves were relegation fodder after 3 games.
Probably shouldn’t speak about something you know nothing about then. Saves us having this pointless convo
So tell me then, what does this measure tell us about the match today? That United should have won? Well, duh. They didn’t though, did they? So how does this actually help anybody?
It tells us Watford are still bad, giving up big chances, whilst offering little going forward — whereas United, if they continue to create as much as they are, will eventually score more and win more games. What United are doing is sustainable, what we’re doing isn’t
Thst assumes that each match is not an independent event. Now, that’s an interesting point - but I would say that just because we didn’t play well today doesn’t mean we won’t next time. After all, we were decent against Villa, but **** against Palace. Ultimately league table placings rest on points, not performances.
OK. Which all sounds quite plausible. I’m just not sure why you need some sort of statistic to tell you what seems obvious to anyone who watches the game, and why people make such a big thing of it. At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, GT or Clough could have told you this without some statistical calculation being needed.
It’s United at Old Trafford. Of course they will create big chances. Just as Liverpool and City will. The amount of money these clubs spend on their teams ensures this will always be the case. All clubs like Watford can do is hope they play well and that United are off it a little. We’ve taken 4 points from the last three games. Villa away, Palace at home and United away. I’ll take that.
And points are driven by performances. And performances are driven by effectiveness of a team over a season. Anyway, it’s clear you are completely results orientated. I completely disagree with that so not much point in discussing further. Agree to disagree.
It’s five, but yes, agreed. That said, 4 points from two away games v Villa and United is not bad at all and only looks **** because of the capitulation to Palace.
In our position it’s not a bad start for Hodgson. 5 points from 6 games keeps us within touching distance. Now we’ve got to kick on. Back-to-back wins would really put us in a great position in the race to stay up. I think we’re on the cusp of changing mindsets within the team. It’s all about belief, which comes from doing the right things. I’d say we’ve had 2 poor games and 4 good ones from Hodgson’s 6 in charge.
We only need 18 points from 12 games, I don’t see why that’s not possible. Half the teams we have to play will be on the beach.
Definitely need to sort that home form and performances out. 4 points from those games would have backed up the away results up nicely .
I thought that would have been our first point at Old Trafford, but I looked and we had a couple of 1-1 draws in the mid-80s and another in the FA Cup in 1968/69, the season we got promoted to the second tier for the first time - can anyone tell me who scored the goals in those?
