Jump to content

Svenc

Members+
  • Content Count

    5,059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Svenc last won the day on November 4 2016

Svenc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,220 "Here's Johnny!"

4 Followers

About Svenc

  • Rank
    Youth Team

Biography

  • Biography
    "At the end of the day, all we can do as humans is create a tactic which dominates possession, creates clear cut chances and gets shots on target." -- perceived football wisdoms of an eternally to be frustrated Football Manager.

About Me

  • About Me
    Germoney

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Dishonored II

Recent Profile Visitors

9,927 profile views
  1. Most one on ones are actually rated in the 0.3xGish range (individually up to xG 0.5+). They are considered 1 in 3 chances plain average. Coupled with that the conversion is now higher than even 50%, and the many misconceptions of FMers (they consider one on ones near penalties or even better), that explains why there are so many "pleased with one on ones" posts now though. One on ones are great chances, but plain not open goals (as in other, even better chances that leave the keeper no chance of anticipating).
  2. That's XCOM Baby. (Assuming the average chance of scoring was a very decent 85%, missing five in a row would be a 1 in 13.000 chance. Long odds, but not quite akin to winning the lottery either. Over thousands of players, it should occur quite regularly. Only if SI were to ever hardcode that on x misses, the next kick is always a goal, wouldn't this occur.)
  3. According to the overall stats seen, there seems nothing obviously off -- this was posted also by SI. Now hear me out, this will be reported every release by someone, even if it needn't be a bug (which it could still be). You know why? Big numbers. And things not artificially being scripted to stay within "boundaries". Until a couple days ago I was playing Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access, an RPG based on lots of numbers crunching also. Going online, it was apparent that (just as in any random number game..) people were convinced there was something wrong with the random number generator. Peo
  4. At least they did score. https://understat.com/match/9887
  5. https://understat.com/match/11662 https://understat.com/match/11669 https://understat.com/match/11673 https://understat.com/match/11700 https://understat.com/match/553 https://understat.com/match/563 https://understat.com/match/573 https://understat.com/match/599 https://understat.com/match/1029 https://understat.com/match/1036 https://understat.com/match/1040 https://understat.com/match/1051 https://understat.com/match/1063
  6. People are getting confused over this because some of the best teams in recent years happened to be possession based (Barca, Spain and Bayern, most prominently). Leicester won the league back then with some of the "worst" possession and pass completion rate (whilst conceding as many shots as they created, btw.). I was top of the league with similar stats back on FM 2016 already. It's not how much you have the ball (or how many shots you have), and never was, it is what you do with it. This article is real old, but fortunately, stats-wise FM is slowly catching up. (Spoiler: Watch those
  7. The community too apparently have already tried to do some explaining. https://footballmanagertips.com/what-is-xg-on-football-manager-2021-how-to-use-xg-on-fm21/ Somebody was even trying to apply it all to FM 19 already. https://dictatethegame.com/getting-expected-goals-or-xg-into-fm19/
  8. I've yet to check long-term stats myself (will be a project of mine), but may I suggest an xG tutorial. Also, the first thing I predicted in my mind when SI introduced xG, was players going "broken" when a one on one mostly gets an accordingly rating in the 0.3 xG range. Posters on the Twittersphere go bonkers over Caley, 11tegen11, Between The Posts, Knutson et all themselves every time they see such.
  9. In 2017/2018 Crystal Palace didn't score a goal in the first 7 matches despite an xG of over 7 total (off ~80 shots). If things are working "correctly", this means you probably had a bit of a streak of bad luck in there and don't necessarily need to panic, which is one of the uses of analysing chances. Palace started as dead last but finished safe mid-table.
  10. It is of note that very few players on any level actually outperform their xG with some consistency. Messi, for instance. Immobile in Serie A had outperformed his xG by almost 8 goals last term, however he too doesn't do this every season at all despite being a clinical finisher. I think this may be worth mentioning, as no matter how great a player, he won't turn a chance into an altogether different one. Competitive sports is all about getting a few margins of edges. If you're competing with the likes of Messi et all in football, you are already pretty damn good at what you are doing -- usual
  11. A ~0.3 xG is actually a fairly typical score for a one on one (no wonder players are always such frustrated, even at Fifa -- in their mind it is indeed a 1xG). That's a big chance in the bigger picture, btw. Anything at about ~0.25 and more would be. The average xG is but ~0.1. So, looks fairly accurate.
  12. That's quite realistic, actually. https://statsbomb.com/2016/10/xcommentary/ Here's a nice test: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431
  13. Yees.... That naturally may mean that you have few shots, but very high quality, and vice versa.... https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2018/6/27/17511596/2018-world-cup-germany-south-korea-mexico-sweden-elimination The media may have only picked this up fairly recently, but I'd argue the general idea is anything but a trend. It's grabbing football by its.. well, balls. Obviously teams that consistently create high quality chances have better chances of winning football matches.
  14. I think this is going to happen less than with the ill-fated CCC, no less as not all chances are going to be treated equal anymore. "I just had 4 CCCs and didn't score!" is something else than having four "Big chances" with an xG of ~0.25 each and not scoring. There may be discussions too how a certain chance would have such a "low" xG though. Still, RNG is going to be RNG. And football, in-game or otherwise, can still be quite random. For the recently released Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access there is rage all over the shop how people could miss with a 95% chance to hit four times in a row...
×
×
  • Create New...