|
Post by tachyon on Jan 21, 2020 11:18:33 GMT
The basic premise isn't that all players are equal. They differ in their ability to get on to the end of chances and teams differ in their ability to create those chances. It is the conversion rates of those chances that is a narrowly banded skill and under or over performance at the sharp end of a scoring opportunity invariably regresses to the population mean (except Messi). It is used in the betting industry, for instance Matthew Benham's Smartodds uses xG extensively. Re. your bold, I remember once reading that when England manager, Walter Winterbottom once tested his England squad for speed of reaction. Although it varied somewhat, one player stood out as being so far ahead of the rest as to be almost off the scale entirely: Jimmy Greaves. And if you look at Greavseys' goalscoring record, it's actually v.close to Messi and Ronaldo when it comes to goals per game over a long(ish) period in a top level league. This must surely have owed a great deal to his ability to react to a loose chance quicker than everyone else. And I think I'm right in saying that although he would never have won any prizes in a 100 yards race, over the first 10 yards, he was as quick as anyone. Re the second part, Greaves never played in all-conquering teams the way Messi or Ronaldo do, nor do they have brutal defenders clogging the legs off them with impunity like JG had to suffer in his day. I'd guess the only player from those days who could "out-stat" Greaves was Gerd Muller, but he had the advantage of playing for exceptional Bayern and W.Germany teams. P.S. Re Benham, I think I read somewhere that when it comes to signing a striker, he doesn't give a damn how many the player scores himself. Rather, the measure he uses is how many goals the team scores when the striker is on the field, versus how many they score when he isn't.
I think we're sort of agreeing that spatial awareness and being in the right place at the right time is the important (and we find) more repeatable skill. Re Greavsie. Your scoring record is/was a product of the goal environment you played in. Back in the 1880 games were averaging 4.5 goals per game. Then that fell until they changed the offside law from three to two and it spiked again. JG played when it was around three per game, those that followed played when it had fallen to around 2.5. Account for that, JG's best season was akin to Alan Shearer's best season from a goals per game viewpoint. Dixie Dean's 1927/28 season is still unrivalled, even though he played when there were around 3.8 goals per game. Accounting for the different variables, a top striker would expect to score a goal a game in DD's era. As far as I've found he played 39 of the 42 possible league games and smashed that expectation by scoring 60! (although that did include a few pens).
|
|
|
Post by markby on Jan 21, 2020 11:33:25 GMT
Oh the man’s a visionary, Brentford’s club structure is superb and has clarity on nearly every level. He’s constantly developing his approach based on what he sees and that’s commendable. But the fact they’ve generated close to 100 million profit from player transfers using xG at the forefront of their recruitment suggests there is something in it, or at least the way SmartOdds do it which as I say is much more sophisticated than the way Opta do it. I’ve no doubt he’ll be using everything he can additionally to help, but their entire set up is more cerebral than most clubs from top to bottom, independent of the stats they use. He's a protege of bloom. He worked at star lizard before going alone and after they allegedly fell out. And blooms security around his operation is crazy, since they fell out apparently 🤨 I'd love to know what actually went on beyond the rumours that I've been told. When it comes to recruitment, one of the things which really stands to Brentford is that they're fair with their players. This means that they don't eg bullshit them about playing time, then routinely leave them out. Nor do they make big promises that they can't/won't deliver. By the same token if a player performs and gets to the next level, they won't stand in his way unfairly.
So that if a buying team meets the club's valuation, then he'll be permitted to leave, no matter how inconvenient it might be for the team. A perfect example was Neal Maupay. He had been a hot young prospect in France, but his career appeared to stall somewhat. Brighton and Brentford were keeping tabs on him however, and both came in for him. He turned down Brighton, despite them offering more money and having just been promoted to the Prem, because he felt he'd get a better chance with the Bees (canny lad), who paid less than £2m for him. Two successful seasons later and he was now hot property in England. Sheffield Utd were very keen, but although coming close, weren't quite prepared to stump up Bees' asking price, thought to be £20m (plus add-ons?). Bees told them to do one. Then just towards the end of the transfer window, Brighton came up with the money and Bees were true to their word, allowing Neal to leave, despite not having enough time to sign a direct replacement.
Of course, they had to improvise by moving Watkins in from playing wide, and as we've all seen, that is proving very successful. And the other notable aspect is that despite Benham and Bloom reportedly loathing each other, Benham was still prepared to do business with Bloom, providing it was in the best interests of both club and player.
|
|
|
Post by markby on Jan 21, 2020 11:58:24 GMT
xG update. MON's getting an uptick at both ends of the pitch. The rolling average for xG created has taken a gentle upswing and there's been a downward trend in the amount of xG we are conceding. Improving the defensive process was the major factor in turning NI around.During his initial difficult period with NI, Michael had to point out to his players that if games only lasted 75 minutes, they be gaining far more points than they actually were.
I don't know how he managed to rectify that, but we started conceding far fewer goals, as you say. It's not likely to be a simple matter of fitness, since international managers don't have time to work on that. Nor is it likely to have been tactical, since the same tactics which mostly avoided conceding for the first 75 mins should surely still have worked for the final 15?
Substitutions may have been a factor, also picking players who were guaranteed strong/fit enough to last the full 90 mins.
But I suspect it was more a case that the players believed in him and what he was trying to do, such that they came to apply themselves right to the final whistle, rather than throwing the towel in early, as started to happen under the previous manager.
Do you have any stats on this?
|
|
|
Post by markby on Jan 21, 2020 12:27:51 GMT
I think we're sort of agreeing that spatial awareness and being in the right place at the right time is the important (and we find) more repeatable skill. Re Greavsie. Your scoring record is/was a product of the goal environment you played in. Back in the 1880 games were averaging 4.5 goals per game. Then that fell until they changed the offside law from three to two and it spiked again. JG played when it was around three per game, those that followed played when it had fallen to around 2.5. Account for that, JG's best season was akin to Alan Shearer's best season from a goals per game viewpoint. Dixie Dean's 1927/28 season is still unrivalled, even though he played when there were around 3.8 goals per game.
Accounting for the different variables, a top striker would expect to score a goal a game in DD's era. As far as I've found he played 39 of the 42 possible league games and smashed that expectation by scoring 60! (although that did include a few pens). Re Dixie Dean, you really want to take a look at his contemporary, Northern Irishman Joe Bambrick of Linfield and Chelsea - link
Notable for scoring more goals in an international game than any other British Isles player (6 vs. Wales in 1930), he was also astonishlingly prolific in League football. Granted, the standard of the Irish League wasn't so high as in England, but neither was it nearly so far behind as it is presently, since the maximum wage then in operation meant players in NI weren't so far behind players in England, money-wise, so didn't have so great an incentive to move over the water.
Of course, whenever a Linfield fan mentions "Head, heel or toe, slip it to Joe", fans of their great rivals Glentoran will invariably point to his exact contemporary, "Heel, toe or head, slip it to Fred" Roberts - link The hugely prolific Roberts can point to scoring 96 goals in the 1930/31 season, another British Isles record.
And a decade or two later, Jimmy Jones surpassed both in terms of total goals scored in his career, an astonishing 646, despite missing two full seasons with a broken leg when he was 21 - link
Oh that Norn Iron had even one of those nowadays...
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 21, 2020 19:25:01 GMT
xG update. MON's getting an uptick at both ends of the pitch. The rolling average for xG created has taken a gentle upswing and there's been a downward trend in the amount of xG we are conceding. Improving the defensive process was the major factor in turning NI around.During his initial difficult period with NI, Michael had to point out to his players that if games only lasted 75 minutes, they be gaining far more points than they actually were. I don't know how he managed to rectify that, but we started conceding far fewer goals, as you say. It's not likely to be a simple matter of fitness, since international managers don't have time to work on that. Nor is it likely to have been tactical, since the same tactics which mostly avoided conceding for the first 75 mins should surely still have worked for the final 15? Substitutions may have been a factor, also picking players who were guaranteed strong/fit enough to last the full 90 mins. But I suspect it was more a case that the players believed in him and what he was trying to do, such that they came to apply themselves right to the final whistle, rather than throwing the towel in early, as started to happen under the previous manager. Do you have any stats on this?
Some interesting points raised. 1) Could NJ sustain the levels of xG? Here's our xG plot for the one and a half Championship seasons. GR, NJ & MON. Attachment DeletedUnder the first two our process has been that of a 12th to 14th placed team, although the results haven't always reflected that, hence the terrible points haul at the start of 2019/20. The xG created pretty much matches the xG allowed throughout that period and neither GR nor NJ could improve one side of the ball without the other side suffering. First the defensive process improved to week 40 in the first season, but the attack took a hit. Then the attack became more productive (even though some of those extra chances were missed), but the defence became more generous (and JB's form didn't help). There wasn't any reason to suspect that the xG differntial was deteriorating for either manager, whatever the rumour mill suggested about the player/management relationship. It was locked in a mid table rut, where variance could get you relegated if it fell wrong or in the playoffs if it took a more kindly view. MON's broken the deadlock, improving the xG created, whilst also improving the defensive process (maybe by just doing something as simple as organising better. Defence can be improved this way, the attack generally needs more talented players). 2) Is there anything in the data to suggest MON has got the players over the 75 min hump? This season we've got 14 games of NJ and 13 of MON. That's not huge, plus MON has played against teams who have a 3% inferior attack and 4% inferior defence, compared to NJ (Small numbers, but they do skew it slightly). I'd call these performance, rather than predictive figures, but there is a difference in both chance creation & suppression (xG) and how the ball is moved/prevented from going into more dangerous areas (NS xG "threat" epv, whatever you want to call it). I've split the numbers into ten minute segments, but to summarise, MON's Stoke starts really impressively, treads water with the opposition until the break, then starts the 2nd half well, keeps its nose in front until the final ten and then finishes really strongly. NJ's Stoke started on the backfoot for the first 30 mins, took some semblance of control until the hour, but got clobbered afterwards before getting back on an more even keel for the final 15 mins. Good stuff on Joe Bambrick
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 21, 2020 19:33:21 GMT
During his initial difficult period with NI, Michael had to point out to his players that if games only lasted 75 minutes, they be gaining far more points than they actually were. I don't know how he managed to rectify that, but we started conceding far fewer goals, as you say. It's not likely to be a simple matter of fitness, since international managers don't have time to work on that. Nor is it likely to have been tactical, since the same tactics which mostly avoided conceding for the first 75 mins should surely still have worked for the final 15? Substitutions may have been a factor, also picking players who were guaranteed strong/fit enough to last the full 90 mins. But I suspect it was more a case that the players believed in him and what he was trying to do, such that they came to apply themselves right to the final whistle, rather than throwing the towel in early, as started to happen under the previous manager. Do you have any stats on this?
Some interesting points raised. 1) Could NJ sustain the levels of xG? Here's our xG plot for the one and a half Championship seasons. GR, NJ & MON. View AttachmentUnder the first two our process has been that of a 12th to 14th placed team, although the results haven't always reflected that, hence the terrible points haul at the start of 2019/20. The xG created pretty much matches the xG allowed throughout that period and neither GR nor NJ could improve one side of the ball without the other side suffering. First the defensive process improved to week 40 in the first season, but the attack took a hit. Then the attack became more productive (even though some of those extra chances were missed), but the defence became more generous (and JB's form didn't help). There wasn't any reason to suspect that the xG differntial was deteriorating for either manager, whatever the rumour mill suggested about the player/management relationship. It was locked in a mid table rut, where variance could get you relegated if it fell wrong or in the playoffs if it took a more kindly view. MON's broken the deadlock, improving the xG created, whilst also improving the defensive process (maybe by just doing something as simple as organising better. Defence can be improved this way, the attack generally needs more talented players). 2) Is there anything in the data to suggest MON has got the players over the 75 min hump? This season we've got 14 games of NJ and 13 of MON. That's not huge, plus MON has played against teams who have a 3% inferior attack and 4% inferior defence, compared to NJ (Small numbers, but they do skew it slightly). I'd call these performance, rather than predictive figures, but there is a difference in both chance creation & suppression (xG) and how the ball is moved/prevented from going into more dangerous areas (NS xG "threat" epv, whatever you want to call it). I've split the numbers into ten minute segments, but to summarise, MON's Stoke starts really impressively, treads water with the opposition until the break, then starts the 2nd half well, keeps its nose in front until the final ten and then finishes really strongly. NJ's Stoke started on the backfoot for the first 30 mins, took some semblance of control until the hour, but got clobbered afterwards before getting back on an more even keel for the final 15 mins. Good stuff on Joe Bambrick Very good summation of the stats and I think captures the team performances under the managers 👍
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 22, 2020 7:56:11 GMT
xG update. MON's getting an uptick at both ends of the pitch. The rolling average for xG created has taken a gentle upswing and there's been a downward trend in the amount of xG we are conceding. Improving the defensive process was the major factor in turning NI around. For the almost the first time since we dropped into the Championship, we've got some positive separation between our attacking and defensive process. Most importantly for results, the statistically noisy outcomes have started to better track the process (but that always happens eventually). View Attachment The orange line above the blue line in the first defensive plot is where JB was letting in the feeblest of chances (that's stopped happening). And the orange line below the blue line in the attacking plot is where we were bouncing high quality chances off the post (that's also stopped being an issue). “For the almost the first time since we dropped into the Championship, we've got some positive separation between our attacking and defensive process.” Sorry to be thick, but could you expand on this? I’m not sure what it means. It means we're finally creating better quality and quantity of chances than we are conceding. Under NJ & GR they were roughly the same. In traditional goals, it's the difference between having a near zero goal difference (the equivalent of around 13th in the table) or a positive one that would typically have you placed higher.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 22, 2020 8:23:13 GMT
P.S. Re Benham, I think I read somewhere that when it comes to signing a striker, he doesn't give a damn how many the player scores himself. Rather, the measure he uses is how many goals the team scores when the striker is on the field, versus how many they score when he isn't.
That's plus/minus, borrowed from US sports analytics. You separate out all the unique line ups for both sides and look at the goal differential during that phase of play. You do it for every team in a decent sample of games, so that you interconnect the ratings. Then you attribute "goals ratings" to each player such that their ratings best describes the goal differential of every unique line up. (You minimize the errors for the maths nerds). It needs a clever programmer to sift out the data and lots of processing grunt to run the models. It works fine for the NBA. Lots of substitutions, lots of scores. It's much less effective when applied to soccer, maximum of seven unique matchups per game, hardly any goals. Instead of goals we use xG (surprise, surprise) and latterly non shot xG that values every action and not just chances. Brentford have used a lot of low hanging fruit that's common knowledge within football analytics and benefitted from the inertia of others. Any club could set up a half decent analytics team for the cost of a backup centre half. Liverpool's runs on a core of four people. I had a meeting at the hotel opposite Stoke station a few years back with Brentford's D of F, when I went over most of the stuff I post here. If you want an entertaining romp through xG with a Brentford slant check out The Expected Goals Philosophy by James Tippett There's even a whole chapter about me :-)
|
|
|
Post by markby on Jan 22, 2020 16:04:51 GMT
Re Greavsie. Your scoring record is/was a product of the goal environment you played in. Back in the 1880 games were averaging 4.5 goals per game. Then that fell until they changed the offside law from three to two and it spiked again. JG played when it was around three per game, those that followed played when it had fallen to around 2.5. Account for that, JG's best season was akin to Alan Shearer's best season from a goals per game viewpoint. Dixie Dean's 1927/28 season is still unrivalled, even though he played when there were around 3.8 goals per game. Accounting for the different variables, a top striker would expect to score a goal a game in DD's era. As far as I've found he played 39 of the 42 possible league games and smashed that expectation by scoring 60! (although that did include a few pens). I take your point about "goal environment etc" - I hadn't really thought about it that way.
Are there any data which show how many goals the likes of DD/JG/AS scored compared with their contemporaries in the same leagues? I only ask, because I seem to remember that not only did Greaves regularly top the scoring charts each season, but he often seemed to be way ahead of the others (could be faulty memory, mind).
Whereas with Linfield's Bambrick (the NI equivalent of Greaves), Fred Roberts was equally prolific across the city for Glentoran.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 22, 2020 19:46:21 GMT
“For the almost the first time since we dropped into the Championship, we've got some positive separation between our attacking and defensive process.” Sorry to be thick, but could you expand on this? I’m not sure what it means. It means we're finally creating better quality and quantity of chances than we are conceding. Under NJ & GR they were roughly the same. In traditional goals, it's the difference between having a near zero goal difference (the equivalent of around 13th in the table) or a positive one that would typically have you placed higher. Thanks for the explanation. It’s easier to see this in your follow up post which shows both xG for and against on the same chart. I notice you use a ten game rolling average. Is this weighted? If not, would a weighted average be a better predictor? PS I’m really enjoying these posts. I hope you stick around.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 23, 2020 8:54:46 GMT
I take your point about "goal environment etc" - I hadn't really thought about it that way. [/div] Are there any data which show how many goals the likes of DD/JG/AS scored compared with their contemporaries in the same leagues? I only ask, because I seem to remember that not only did Greaves regularly top the scoring charts each season, but he often seemed to be way ahead of the others (could be faulty memory, mind). Whereas with Linfield's Bambrick (the NI equivalent of Greaves), Fred Roberts was equally prolific across the city for Glentoran.
[/quote] I think your intuition re Greaves is probably correct. He was top scorer in the first div six times, a record. And although published records aren't very reliable, even as recently as the 1960's he did win at least a couple by wideish margins. The "exchange rate" for goals between the NIFL and the first division when Bambrick & Roberts played was around 10 NIFL goals were equivalent to scoring 4 in the 1st div.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 23, 2020 8:56:15 GMT
Thanks for the explanation. It’s easier to see this in your follow up post which shows both xG for and against on the same chart. I notice you use a ten game rolling average. Is this weighted? If not, would a weighted average be a better predictor? PS I’m really enjoying these posts. I hope you stick around. [/quote] Thanks. We weight for predictive purposes. But just use raw figures for "what happened" plots like these.
|
|
|
Post by StoKeith on Feb 8, 2020 6:56:39 GMT
This actually came up in the first of the Christmas lectures this (technically last) year which has recently been uploaded on YouTube. Liverpool employ several mathematicians who do all of the xG and expected goal value stuff that tachyon does.
Here’s the link (time stamped to start at the right bit):
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 13, 2020 14:57:29 GMT
Just done down a bit of an XG wormhole, prompted by yesterday's low XG total. Interesting to go through our game-by-game totals, including the Premier era. A few surprising games feature in our top games
Totals above 2.5
4.08 3-2 Sheff Weds H (19-20) (Vokes' last minute winner)
3.46 2-2 West Ham H (14-15) (dominated first hour, 2-0 up through Moses and Diouf before really unlucky late collapse) 3.31 2-0 Boro (16-17) (two first half goals from Arnie) 3.27 2-3 Blackburn (18-19) (3-0 down before 2 late goals from Berahino and Ince and Berahino injury-time pen miss. ) 3.08 1-2 Swansea A (19-20) (Hogan last minute winner to save Jones)
2.95 2-2 Spurs A (15-16) (2 late goals from Arnie and Diouf for deserved draw) 2.86 2-1 Southampton (16-17)
2.69 2-2 Derby H (19-20) (2 goals from Hogan, very unlucky to only draw) 2.60 2-1 Wigan H (19-20) (Diouf's late winner) 2.59 1-1 Everton H (16-17) (Crouch's 100th Prem goal) 2.58 3-2 Arsenal H (14-15) (where we played them off the park before Bojan's disallowed 4th) 2.51 2-2 Leicester H (16-17) (outplayed Leicester for first hour in their title season after Vardy red card)
Interestingly we only had 2.33 when we spanked Liverpool 6-1
Totals below 0.3
0.08 3-1 Brentford A (18-19) Jones' first game 0.14 5-0 Chelsea A (17-18) (rested 4 or 5 players with view to winnable Newcastle game a few days later...which we , of course...er...lost) 0.16 0-0 Derby A (20-21) 0.21 0-2 Man City H (17-18) (2 goals from Silva - no shots on target from us) 0.22 1-1 Leicester A (17-18) (great goal from Shaq before Butland howler) 0.24 1-1 Newcastle A (14-15) (Crouch last minute equaliser)
0.31 0-2 Swansea A (20-21) No comment
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 13, 2020 16:20:12 GMT
Just done down a bit of an XG wormhole, prompted by yesterday's low XG total. Still my fav xG plot ever. Brentford 0 (1.87 xG) Birmingham 1 (0.01 xG) A header from outside the box. Deadly placement, though.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 13, 2020 16:25:04 GMT
Just done down a bit of an XG wormhole, prompted by yesterday's low XG total. Still my fav xG plot ever. Brentford 0 (1.87 xG) Birmingham 1 (0.01 xG) A header from outside the box. Deadly placement, though. View AttachmentHaha. That's amazing and surely will never be beaten! Bit of a smash and grab then.....
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Dec 13, 2020 17:25:27 GMT
Just done down a bit of an XG wormhole, prompted by yesterday's low XG total. Interesting to go through our game-by-game totals, including the Premier era. A few surprising games feature in our top games Totals above 2.54.08 3-2 Sheff Weds H (19-20) (Vokes' last minute winner) 3.46 2-2 West Ham H (14-15) (dominated first hour, 2-0 up through Moses and Diouf before really unlucky late collapse) 3.31 2-0 Boro (16-17) (two first half goals from Arnie) 3.27 2-3 Blackburn (18-19) (3-0 down before 2 late goals from Berahino and Ince and Berahino injury-time pen miss. ) 3.08 1-2 Swansea A (19-20) (Hogan last minute winner to save Jones) 2.95 2-2 Spurs A (15-16) (2 late goals from Arnie and Diouf for deserved draw) 2.86 2-1 Southampton (16-17) 2.69 2-2 Derby H (19-20) (2 goals from Hogan, very unlucky to only draw) 2.60 2-1 Wigan H (19-20) (Diouf's late winner) 2.59 1-1 Everton H (16-17) (Crouch's 100th Prem goal) 2.58 3-2 Arsenal H (14-15) (where we played them off the park before Bojan's disallowed 4th) 2.51 2-2 Leicester H (16-17) (outplayed Leicester for first hour in their title season after Vardy red card) Interestingly we only had 2.33 when we spanked Liverpool 6-1 Totals below 0.30.08 3-1 Brentford A (18-19) Jones' first game 0.14 5-0 Chelsea A (17-18) (rested 4 or 5 players with view to winnable Newcastle game a few days later...which we , of course...er...lost) 0.16 0-0 Derby A (20-21)0.21 0-2 Man City H (17-18) (2 goals from Silva - no shots on target from us) 0.22 1-1 Leicester A (17-18) (great goal from Shaq before Butland howler) 0.24 1-1 Newcastle A (14-15) (Crouch last minute equaliser) 0.31 0-2 Swansea A (20-21) No comment Is there a value for the Begovic goal game against Southampton?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Dec 13, 2020 19:06:21 GMT
Is there a value for the Begovic goal game against Southampton?[/quote] xG is patchy pre 2014, but the main component is distance from goal. I've stuck 97.5 yards into an xG model and it's come out as a 1 in 25,000 event. Probably less because it was a very windy day!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2020 14:34:33 GMT
Just done down a bit of an XG wormhole, prompted by yesterday's low XG total. Still my fav xG plot ever. Brentford 0 (1.87 xG) Birmingham 1 (0.01 xG) A header from outside the box. Deadly placement, though. View AttachmentTextbook smash and grab from Brum. The highlights package is hilarious. Apart from Pederson's header (an absolute beauty) at 1:40, the whole thing is one way traffic.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 15, 2020 19:38:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Dec 15, 2020 19:40:57 GMT
The best chance was the Powell chance.
Should have been a 0-1 game
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 15, 2020 19:42:05 GMT
The best chance was the Powell chance. Should have been a 0-1 game That was put at a 9% chance, which surprised me. Thought it'd have been higher
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Dec 15, 2020 19:43:30 GMT
The best chance was the Powell chance. Should have been a 0-1 game That was put at a 9% chance, which surprised me. Thought it'd have been higher Bizarre, it was a clean header a few yards out, even commentary assessed it as the best chance of the match. Very disappointed in our current circumstances that Powell doesn't put that away
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 15, 2020 19:45:25 GMT
This is why xG will never be the whole story despite the devotion of the true believer's.
|
|
|
Post by DC1863 on Dec 15, 2020 19:49:14 GMT
Not totally on topic but I just cannot see where the goals on going to come from without Campbell.
Powell and Fletcher both have 4 but I can't realistically are either hitting 15+ for the season.
|
|