Toonpack

Now you’re talking even more shite 😂😂

Exactly

Any statistical model that shows we should have lost last night must have questions asked about it's validity, simple really.

75% is a damn sight more realistic than four hundredths, if you actually watched the game.

Christ, how hard can it be 🙄 You stated you had no issue with the xG attributed to Isak's chance/goal, that stat was 0.04 i.e. he only had a four hundredth of a chance to score - preposterous. Now, the position he was on the pitch may produce goals four times out of a hundred, but the circumstances surrounding his chance (defenders nowhere, keeper in no mans land) mean his xG should have been 75% at least.

So you agreed with Isak's xG (from the distillation of tens of thousands of games) but it's not about Isak specifically in the context of last nights game. Aye ok. It enhances my enjoyment of watching (or understanding) a game not one iota, it can also at the individual game level be thoroughly misleading for someone who didn't see it. (We weren't particularly clinical and certainly not lucky)

So you expect Alexander Isak to miss that chance 96 times out of a hundred, aye ?

@Monkeys Fist

I love them as a group and when they do bollock each other it's never for a fit of pique, it's constructive. We have a really great "team".

I do, sorry. Schar - the stat would suggest he'd score one time out of four. He was 8 yards out centre of goal in front of any defender, under little pressure, and meeting a perfectly pacey, flighted ball at perfect height. If he missed that 3 times out of four he wants shot with shit. Isak, His little blue star may be outside the D but he was under no pressure, no defender within 6 foot of him and the keeper was out of position/on his heels because ball was given away. The replay angle from behind Isak perfectly shows how much goal he had to aim at, to suggest Isak (or even Shola) would miss that 96 times out of a hundred is just not realistic.

Toontastic's very own Jim Jones

We saw a game that was incredibly one sided, ended up 5-0 and could/should have been more yet there's a statistic that indicates it was a close run thing. Given that evidence I would suggest that statistic is fundamentally flawed to the point of irrelevance.

A fucking chimpanzee with crayons would make more sense than what Sky put up last night.

Even god doesn't do that. 🎶 I can't remember if I sighed When Sky put up their xG slide But something told me that it lied The day the xG died 🎶

True, given the relative positions of all the players and the quality of delivery, it should be nearer 80%

5 but it could easily have been 8 or 9

Could we say "you don't believe it"?

What a fucking ball in by Murphy that was

We can beat anyone, we schooled Liverpool and have owned Arsenal 👍

*Or on their Saudi invested iPhones

Soon to be 6-1. Like I said

6-1 Burn them to the ground.

Beating PSG in the champions league is not for everyone it eeems.

He's a dirty little cunt that McGinn