Rousseau

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.

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.

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.

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

Those free-kicks from Rice were stunning.

Your arrogance is staggering. I'll leave you to it.

Nonsense. Atalanta are one of the most intense sides around - pumping one of the most intense German sides (Leverkusen) in last year's Europa League final.

In my head, I also think he has been incredibly wasteful. But, I also think he has scored unbelievable goals (e.g. Dundee Utd) and missed absolute sitters. It's a perfect example of how our perceptions are not entirely accurate. The 12.52 xG is only in the league. So he is still under-performing. It's much worse in Europe: 3 goals from an xG of 5.33.

Rangers 1 - 0 Athletic Club FGS Dessers

Rangers vs Athletic Club

You're not grasping the mathematics of probability. Of course it will vary from match to match; it's not a big enough data set. xG is only useful over the medium to long term, which is why when using player xG, I take season data, not one-off games. That's true for goals scored, too: teams can score 8-9 goals in a single game, but that won't continue over every match in a season. I post single match shot maps and xG, like above, because I think it illustrates where shots are taken from and gives a general idea of the quality of the chances we've created. I don't draw any hard conclusions from it. All you're saying is your internal xG model is better than the mathematicians at Opta. If that's what you believe, then fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you. The Opta model has Dessers on 12.52 xG for the season. You seem to have him on 9 in the last 3 games alone. So he should be on about 54 goals from the 18 full matches he's played (1,674 mins) in the league? He has scored 12 goals. By all means keep calling it bollocks, but its accuracy is self-evident.

That's your opinion, though. We'll all have a different opinion of whether a player should have scored or not. This xG model tells you how many past players have actually scored from that type of shot - taking into account numerous variables of hundreds of thousands of shots. It's pretty accurate. A penalty has an xG of 0.79. Were Dessers' chances similar to a penalty? A free shot, centre of goal with no defenders around him? Dessers has an xG of 12.26 this season in the league. He has scored 12. Haaland has an xG of 21.40 this season in the league. He has scored 21. Can you beat that? Have you watched more than hundreds of thousands of shots? Are you able to take into account 20 plus variables?

To be fair, the pass network shows he got very little service.

I've updated my xG data to include Ferguson's tenure. It's... not great...

The horseshoe!!

I don't have an issue with that in this instance. It was James Tavernier.

I'm glad you added that final sentence. Before that it was all too altruistic.

That's the ideal, I agree. We've not had a proper DoF model to really implement that, frustratingly.

I agree. He should have been let go at the end of the season.

So'ton relegated.

Perhaps. His contract must be close to ending?

I see a rebuild as being the remit of the DoF - or Koppen in our case, until we fill the DoF position - a level above the manager. If a manager is not doing his job - as in the case of PC - then he should be moved on. That shouldn't disrupt the rebuild. I saw this season as the first phase of a rebuild in the sense we were clearing the deadwood. I understand the downsizing criticism, but it could be argued that was needed in any case. We now need to sign first team quality and let the young core develop.

There was a video posted on Reddit suggesting copying the Greek model, which sounded reasonable. I think it was a 14-team league with a split (6 and 8). This would expand the league but also ensure the 4 Old Firm games for the TV deal. I would also like more promotion and relegation spots.

I feel one can hold both positions at the same time: we have undoubtedly been mismanaged for far too long, but we're also incredibly impatient, hence the fact we get naive calls for a rebuild every season. We shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. I think there have been some good ideas more recently with Bennett and Jean-Luc that should be developed, irrespective of the takeover (preferably with). I think the aim of financial self-sufficiency is vital, and we have the foundations of a better recruitment and Academy strategy being implemented. I do think the best aspect of the takeover is the potential of having strong leadership and direction with regards to the strategy. I think we've been pulled this way and that for too long as a result of not having a clear leader. Of course, we don't want to be beholden to the whims of one owner again, but someone to take charge of the overall direction is key.