All Activity

This split transfer window in June. What's the fucking point? Just open it 1st of June and leave it.

So I am currently working my notice. I asked if I could finish tomorrow, but got told 'we have a few bits on you could help us with so can you do the week after' so I agreed. Was on holiday last week, came back into work on Tuesday. I had half a morning to get through my emails I had from my holiday. About 9ish we have a resource meeting. I told main gaffers I have to clear a few bits but I am ready for the jobs they want me on. I am still waiting for these jobs and have spent since 12pm on Tuesday twiddling my thumbs These jobs they want me on, are more than a weeks worth of work so I don't see the point in me starting them as I wont finish them. So I am sat here with fuck all to do bored shitless. BUT I am getting paid I suppose

This is fucking insane. Fucking bastards coming over here, feeding our kids. Once upon a time you could rely on the Saudis to throw stones at our gays and wimmin and you could respect it. But this!? Makes me sick. Already sent a Wearside Jack style tape to my local MP.

How have they managed to analyse the exact same scenario of shot to get the result though (0.78 xg in this example)? Do you they also clock the speed of the pass and what foot (stronger or weaker) of the player it falls to? If that cross was mirrored from the right and it fell to his left side then I'd expect him to have more of a chance of scoring. I appreciate its a stats tool used but its clearly not accurate.

I’ve told you before not to butt in when the men are taking

It’s a harder chance for Tubby Brewster last night for precisely the same reasons though. So why is his data being included in the xG? I get the large sample size explanation but Tubby Brewster is never going to be in the European cup semi final. Context absolutely counts . His data is irrelevant in the context of last night. So that to me means xG as a reference point is fundamentally flawed.

PL not yet retired from asking questions about xG and responding with an indignant "I'LL THANK YOU NOT TO MANSPLAIN, KIND SIR!"

It's institewtional rayucism!

Mackems being victimised by the magstabulary itt.

Fewming because they’ve decided that PIF is giving free meals to kids in Newcastle Also, that last line… Kids- kids are definitely more vile than murderers

Feels good to be officially retired from having to explain this shit AGAIN.

Have you been to as many of the Policeman’s’ Balls as Toonpack?

"Ere man! Less 'im alairn, ey's aalwuz walked like that!"

Well, because it averages out. The ability of Saka, the coaching he's had, the support he's had to manage pressure situations, the experience he's got of playing in high stakes games, versus the fatigue, the speed of the game, the weight of the pressure, the height of this particular stake. And the law of big numbers. That chance he missed was valued at 0.78xG, which means if that chance happened 1000 times, you'd expect the ball to hit the back of the net 780 times. This was just one of those 220 times in a thousand that it didn't. Let that chance fall to some clogger from Morecambe he's more likely to shank it that Saka is, but you'd still be in the stands saying "My nan could have finished that", because you know that if you watched 1,000 chances that were pretty much the same, the vast majority of them would be buried, regardless of who it fell to. We've all seen world class stars fuck up a relatively easy chance, and we've seen fucking clogger spaff one in against all odds. But because xG looks at thousands and thousands of data points it can ignore the ability of the player and look instead at the chance itself. It doesn't need to worry about the pressure of the stakes, or the BMI of the the player. It's the chance that matters. Not the competition, not the stadium, not the player... just the chance.

When we were in Normandy with the kids, we came across the Basilica of Saint Therese of Lisieux, massive Cathedral started in 1929, finished in 1954, with some mild bombing* in between. Definitely worth a visit if you’re in the area- the pairings and murals inside are fucking mad, in fact, I’d recommend dropping a tab before you go, it’s the only way to explain this depiction of the Middle Eastern lad Jesus Bat Shit Insanity * you can go up the outside of the dome, and on the top path there’s an in situ shell from ww2, stuck in the pathway, which, of course,didn’t go off and was a miracle.

What a fucking knacker. No surprise, but what a bull's Clem that bloke is.

https://twitter.com/deludedof/status/1920377251616407758?s=46&t=z2j8swpKHKggwsIUQJsACw

Well I’ve understood all that since you’ve mansplained it dozens of times because you think I don’t understand it. That the degree of difficulty of the chance is the same in the parc des princes in the last 10 of the European cup semi final as it is at the most basic level of local semi pro football doesn’t make sense. Context isn’t taken into consideration so how can the data be accurate? The human factor has to be allows for, which of course is utterly impossible. Why did Saka miss the open goal? What was the xG of the chance? Why is the xG of the chance the same as it is at West Allotment Celtic? It is indisputably a more difficult chance at the parc des Prince last night…

That's not what happens though. All they do is look at the chance (not the shot) and compare it to all the other chances that are sufficiently similar. e.g. a penalty. Of the thousands and thousands of penalties taken, how many end up in the back of the net? Works out to be around 76% of them. For less distinct instances automated video capture is used, plus some human input. They don't say "Ooooh I reckon we should add .002 because there was a crisp packet rustle in the second row. They just say what happened in that chance and the model says this is how often that chance ends up in a goal. Player 35yds out, on the volley, weaker foot, while under pressure is going to be fuck all xG. Player on the goal line, with control of the ball, under no pressure is going to be very high xG. Not because of what that chance sounds like or how it's interpreted, but because looking back at what has happened for those types of chances, this is how rarely or how often the ball ends up in the goal.

Joseph Swan- top lad.

You can't educate pork.

My mate was part of the police presence at Trafalgar Sq that day, they collared the bloke from the pool because he couldn’t walk after straight the fall and they needed to get him medical attention. His father started trying to fight the police and the rest of the fans were launching bottles & cans at them.

If we haven't even got shot of the brand new tariffs, I don't know quite what has been achieved. Hopefully we're not about to be flooded with chlorinated meat.

mackems

Xg data for the European cup semi final last night brought to you in conjunction with not only the likes of Saka who missed an open goal in one of the most highly pressurised environments in the sport itself but seemingly 1000s of lads who had a career like this lad… Then we get to the individuals who actually do the data gathering; those stout fellows who judge how difficult any given shot is at any given game throughout football, all issued with a set of criteria that they interpret having gained their relatively brief football knowledge almost exclusively through a computer simulation of the game itself. Am not suggesting I could do better btw, am suggesting most people would be unable to do it accurately and keep up with everything else that’s going on in the game that they may or may not be assessing. Those are my issues with xG, all context at the top level appears to be removed and at its very basic level data collection is very likely to be arbitrary and partial. I understand the football world uses it and good luck to them but it appears it’s most vocal adherents don’t ask any questions about it at all. Has there been any studies on how accurate it actually is?