Leaderboard

Sometimes the comedy writes itself. BBC Scotland's Scottish football page today(Wednesday 090425) has the Gossip headline - "Leeds' form may affect Rangers takeover". I know I shouldn't click on the link but I do and the leading paragraph reads, "Leeds United dropping out of the automatic promotion places in the Championship could affect Andrew Cavenagh and a 49ers enterprise group headed by Paraag Marathe's takeover of 51% of Rangers shares(Scottish Sun)". Thus, some staffer at PQ has perused the morning papers and decided the Sun's interpretation of Elland Road machinations provides most comfort and decides that it is their gossip headline and lead story. I know I shouldn't but being aware Leeds won at Middlesbrough and Sheffield United lost at home to Millwall(I read through BBC Scotland's provided results for last evening), I checked the Championship table standings as of today(090425). I find with five games to go, Leeds United are sitting top of the table equal on points with Burnley with a better goal difference of plus nine. Further, they are two points ahead of Yorkshire rivals, Sheffield United and have a better goal difference of 27. Fourth place Sunderland sit nine points behind. I am NOT being a cheerleader for the proposed takeover nor, am I being a naysayer. The point here is why BBC Scotland chose such a headline and opening paragraph when the facts clearly show the comedic ludicrousness of the decision. If PQ CSC need their preferred headline to be true then, they better start sticking more pins into their voodoo dolls of current Leeds United players. BBC Scotland are obsessed.

I'm sure I read somewhere that CD has a better goals per game or minute ratio than Morelos (that's an invite for @Rousseau to prove me wrong). 😀 All strikers miss chances, McCoist did, Hateley did, Boyd did, Kenny Miller did, but the 4 mentioned above played in "partnerships" rather than a lone striker.

We can't be blaming Dessers for our ills this season, that would be silly in the extreme. He only gets it as a striker is the focal point of a team (as is the keeper, and he's getting it anaw), and him missing chances is what we remember in the immediate aftermath of games. We don't recall the ball being given away in midfield, defenders playing opposition onside, poor team selections etc.... I've criticised Tav in the past, but only when I feel it's been merited. Alongside the buy and sell type players we desire, we need Tavs, bought for a pittance, loyal and a great servant to the club.

I don't care one way or the other. I was happy we got out of the group. Anything else is a bonus.

One thing I am not is arrogant, apologies if it comes over that way. Pretty sure im in the minority and sounding like a dinosaur for not buying into these new-fangled stats side of football discussions, but when there are such clear errors in the data they make a decent discussion point do they not? I dont mind xG as a discussion point, but it is being accepted as facts, when it is quite clearly not facts. Dont be ridiculous Cammy it doesnt say anything like that anywhere. What i do say is that Dessers misses a bucketful of chances regularly, and if he was more clinical, we might not be miles behind domestically. There was a suggestion that because he is matching this mythical xG that he is performing well for the team, which I disagree with.

Thanks, that's really helpful. So our XG goes up if we create 'better' chances, not if we change centre forward? But a more clinical centre forward should score more goals? I don't have a problem accepting both those statements as true. So when someone says that Dessers misses a lot of chances it's true, it's just that they're not considered 'easy' chances by whoever compiles this data. My main criticism of Dessers earlier in the season was his work outside the box. I felt his hold-up play and link-up play was poor and so if he wasn't scoring he wasn't contributing anything. That side of his game has improved, his all round contribution is better now.

It is a free hit for us but it's a huge step up in quality. We tend to reserve our best performances for Thursday evenings but Fenerbahce ripped us apart at Ibrox as did Lyon in the group stages. I'm not too bothered if we progress or not but want us to avoid a heavy defeat. Our European squad is "lightweight", we have a few missing due to injury and suspension, I fear Thursday us going to be a long, hard and uncomfortable evening.

I'm dreading this game. Nothing more to add.

Morelos would beat him hands down in taking the ball with his back to goal and redistributing it. Dessers doesn't do enough of that for me.

The individuals contribution has to make a difference though, surely? Say Cerny crosses and Dessers goes back post instead of going across the defender, but the defender clears before it gets to him, or Raskin slides a pass through but Dessers knows he's gone too early, checks his run and it runs through to the keeper etc. None of those will be an expected goal, but had a striker made a better decision, both would have?.

If you are talking appearances, it's Morelos 0.46 goals per appearance vs Dessers' 0.45 goals per appearance. But I don't like that because a 2 minute spell is considered an appearance. Per 90, it's Morelos 0.56 goals per 90 mins vs Dessers' 0.65 goals per 90 mins. Dessers is the better goalscorer.

2-1 FGS Dessers, My daughter and I were at the MyGers Broxi party last night at Edminson house and got treated to a surprise visit from the man himself Dessers and Ross McCausland both down-to-earth guys. Fantastic evening last night.

That would be really interesting, alas! my data source doesn't go back that far. It's probably there somewhere - well, Jelavic and McCoist at least - but you'd need to pay for it and I'm cheap.

Those free-kicks from Rice were stunning.

Is this from back in the 'Diego Tristram' days?

Athletic are my new second favourite Spanish club - after Deportivo, who I have a soft spot for. There was a book on Bilbao's unique recruitment philosophy that has interested me, but I haven't got around to buying it. This may prompt me.

Did nothing happen before 1948?

Anyone trying to say anti-zionism doesn't mean they hate Jews is at it. I couldn't care less what the dictionary definition is.

No you had to quickly rush in and say your piece as if it somehow mattered, as if it somehow made a difference. celtic are an antisemitic club. Their supporters have chased players out of their club for being Israeli, they have now attacked their fellow supporters for nothing more than supporting Israel after it suffered a massive terrorist attack. You are so caught up in Zionism, that you fail to realise that the Israeli people have the right to determine who they are, their beliefs, their homeland. And you're so caught up in it that you don't realise that it is by the literal definition antisemitic. "Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." This is how antisemitism is defined by the Met for example. So this man with his Israel badge, suffered an antisemitic attack. Don't come in here and try and tell us celtic aren't antisemitic they're just anti-zionist. Anti-Zionist is bollox. It's a mask to hate against people that identify their homeland as Israel.

I quote our own @Whosthedado in the EFL Topic the other day: “Results went in Leeds favour tonight. Still five games to go though so many many twists and turns to come. Two blatant offsides given wrongly against Leeds to deny them goals and breathing space. Strange that there is no VAR in the English Championship”

It only compares shots. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, yes. It'll increase if we create 'better' chances, and more chances. They're not considered 'easy' chances compared to the millions of similar shots on their database. To me it's a good barometer of how well the team is doing, in terms of creating chances. If our xG is generally high then there's a good chance of scoring more goals, and therefore winning. Conversely, when our xG was low under Beale I was concerned it didn't bode well. I may joke about deciding games on xG, but I'm not saying it is the be-all and end-all, just merely a good barometer of how well we create chances. Your criticism of Dessers aligns with mine.

All players. Otherwise it's meaningless. It's comparing millions of shots. xG measures the quality of a chance by calculating the likelihood that it will be scored by using information on millions of similar shots in the past. If you were to hypothetically put Fran Sandaza in the exact same position that Dessers was in, it would still be 12.52 xG. Because, historically, that's the result of millions of shots in the past. Sandaza was rubbish, so he'd score, say, 6 goals or fewer from that xG of 12.52. That difference would suggest he was rubbish - or really unlucky. If you were to substitute in Haaland or Ronaldo, they might score, say, 18 plus goals from that 12.52 xG. That difference would suggest they are good strikers. Haaland's first season at City saw him score 36 goals from an xG of 28.76, which is unbelievable. Subsequent seasons - which I think would align with most people's view - he hasn't quite been as clinical, he's hitting his xG quite closely. Obviously he's getting lots of chances, so he'll have a higher xG and he'll get more goals. The key thing is how they compare. I would expect a Rangers striker to hit their xG. I would also expect a Rangers striker to get lots of chances, so higher xG and high goals. However, our team is not creating good chances (hence the low xG), and few of them, at the moment. Dessers averages under 4 shots a game, which is not a lot, really. With Dessers, it feels like he misses good chances and scores more difficult ones. This link has more information, if you're interested: https://theanalyst.com/2023/08/what-is-expected-goals-xg

See the stat above of 12.52 for Dessers. Is that based on studying Dessers performances/chances alone, or does it take in other centre forwards as a comparison or what? What I'm trying to understand is if another striker was our centre forward would their XG be different or is 12.52 XG what's expected of a Rangers number 9 based on our play/chances created etc?

The gunners were well worth their win an excellent performance

He could easily have had 9 in just the last 2 games, not 3, but instead has 1. It’s not an internal xG model I prefer it’s trusting your own eyes instead of nonsensical stats. If you would rather believe that Dessers should only be on 12 goals for the season because Opta say so, and that he is giving us value for a £5M price tag and a massive wage then you keep defending stattoland. All the while we will end up trophyless and miles behind a dreadful bheasts side due partly to the amount of chances he has missed in big games all season long, for the second year running. Single match shot maps are interesting to see where we are shooting from, but they don’t count the great chances he has where instead of shooting he tries to cut back into trouble, which he seems to do more regularly than any striker I’ve ever seen. Do Opta even count those as chances because incredibly the striker chose not to shoot but just to get tackled instead?

He repaid much of that last season (58 games) with 24 goals and 12 assists, this season (45) it has dropped to a more normal (for a RB) 5 goals and 12 assists. Next to no penalties ... and truth be told, there we not that many (i.e. 15+) situations where we were denied one. The lack of his goal contribution (which I do not hold against him, for it is simply not his core competence) underlines the fact that our attack "force" is failing badly. Mainly down to lack of "force" in the final third. It's a broken record, though, and I am sick and tired to repeat it. What we have seen is de facto the same line-up used against anyone no matter the competition, with changes only being made due to injuries, suspension or the odd new player (typically shoe-horned into a role not his). You may do that a year or two, but it has become a chronic disease that put the team into some quarantine away from the support with every passing day. I don't think that an extraordinary amount of money is required to change our fortunes in the league. If Hibs manage to assemble a team able to go 16 games unbeaten these days, including two 2-0 wins against the Old Firm, you see what is needed. Which does not mean that we should downscale our ambitions or players to their level, but get a similar mix with some more quality. Which is essentially what Rangers managers of the past have done. It's not like Laudrup, Gazza, DeBoer, McCoist and Co. were the only players on the park.