Rousseau

Fans: League's gone - just play the kids. *plays the kids* Fans:

Same score. FGS Igamane

The squad is fine, relatively speaking, but he's dropped them all!

Any names?

Posted without comment...

What are your thoughts, folks?

Aberdeen 0 - 1 Rangers FGS Dessers

Aberdeen vs Rangers

Incredibly, we have points! Correct Result (1 pt): Onevision and r_s. Correct Number of Rangers Goals (1pt): Dado. FGS (2 pts): - Correct Score (3 pts): - Latest Standings:

It's an admirable policy, yet also questionable at the same time.

I wasn't being entirely serious. I am fascinated by their signing policy, too, but it was more a reaction to their gesture. Their side under Bielsa was something special.

Diego Tristan, yes! Molina, Naybet, Mauro Silva, Pablo, Juan Carlos Valeron, Scaloni, Roy Makaay, Fran, Capdevila. It was a good side.

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.

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

I agree with you. I think Dessers is wasteful. The xG does not show he is performing 'well'. It shows he is performing slightly below average (a 0.52 difference is not insignificant). It's just that he's not as wasteful as you or I thought he was. Combining the data with what I see, I would suggest that he tends to miss easy chances and score harder chances (e.g. Dundee Utd), which would skew the numbers slightly. He does only average 2-3 shots a game (64 shots he has taken this season) so his misses are more obvious. At the end of the day, 12 goals in 32 league games from a number 9 is not great. It's also more of a problem because no one else is scoring - Dessers is hitting the same numbers, or better, than Morelos (excluding the fact that Morelos was a superior player in all other regards, IMO). It's interesting that you see the variance between the data and what you see and think, 'the data is bollocks'; whereas I see the variance and think, 'let's dig deeper into the context to try explain it.'

Ok, apologies. Where's the error? It's based on what has actually happened. I don't know what you mean by 'fact.' It's just the probability. And it is just a discussion point. Let's simplify it and just consider penalties. From the historical data, penalties are scored 79% of the time. You can watch them all back. It gets a value of 0.79 xG. The only fact is that a penalty has been scored 79% of the time in the past. That's indisputable, surely? We then analyse the data by comparing it to what actually happens. (It's the variance that is interesting, as it can be analysed: Are the players rubbish or just unlucky? Are the chances poor quality? Are we not creating enough? Is a player scoring less or more than he should be? Who is getting chances from high xG situations?) A one-off penalty won't tell you much. If after 10 penalties and the player has 2 goals from an xG of 7.9 (10 * 0.79), then he's rubbish. As I've said, the Opta model goes into much, much more detail and volume than what anyone could ever judge with their own eyes. Have a browse of this article, which will explain it better than I ever could: https://theanalyst.com/2023/08/what-is-expected-goals-xg

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.

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.