Match Thread [FT] Rangers 4 (Lammers 10'; Danilo 78'; Sima 84'; Dowell 90') - 0 Livingston

[CammyF 6,779]

34 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

A 50% conversion rate means an xG of 0.5?! They would have to be exceptional chances; almost tap-ins. 

 

That's fair - I did say we did actually create more than that. It was 7 in total during the first half. 

 

I don't think that's enough. They're certainly not high quality chances.

 

It would be phenomenal if we scored 2 goals from 4 shots. It's just not consistently repeatable. We can't expect our players to score 1 goal from two shots - we don't have Messi or Ronaldo. 

 

The whole premise of my position is that we need to be able to consistently create a good amount of good quality chances against the low block. 

It depends on how you define quality chance / tap-ins. Dessers and Souttars 1st half chances weren't 'tap-ins', but both should be at least hitting the target / working the keeper / scoring. 

 

Cifu's was a "tap-in" and he finished it well. It was rightly disallowed, but we should have been given a penalty when the goal was disallowed. 

 

I think it's easy to say that Livi "opened up" in the last 15mins, but i dont think that is 100% correct.

 

They actually opened up around the 55th minute (40 minutes before the final whistle) for about the grand total of 5mins and created 2 half chances. After the hour mark, I don't think Livi created an opportunity or had a shot on target, that's how I think it's unfair to say they "opened up" in last 15mins. 

 

We then regained control and it was obvious Livingston had tired and were leaving gaps, especially out wide. When MB brought on the wide / pacy players, the outcome was inevitable as Livi couldn't match their pace and directness. I think that as as much to do with fitness and tiredness as it was Livi 'opening up". 

 

MB actually said in his post-match interview that he was going to change it earlier, but wanted to stick with the front 3 as we were creating chances. 

 

I posted on this thread at half-time yesterday that once we got the 2nd goal, the floodgates would open, and that's what transpired.

Edited August 13, 2023 by CammyF

[Rousseau 9,361]

20 minutes ago, CammyF said:

It depends on how you define quality chance / tap-ins. Dessers and Souttars 1st half chances weren't 'tap-ins', but both should be at least hitting the target / working the keeper / scoring. 

 

Cifu's was a "tap-in" and he finished it well. It was rightly disallowed, but we should have been given a penalty when the goal was disallowed. 

 

I think it's easy to say that Livi "opened up" in the last 15mins, but i dont think that is 100% correct.

 

They actually opened up around the 55th minute (40 minutes before the final whistle) for about the grand total of 5mins and created 2 half chances. After the hour mark, I don't think Livi created an opportunity or had a shot on target, that's how I think it's unfair to say they "opened up" in last 15mins. 

 

We then regained control and it was obvious Livingston had tired and were leaving gaps, especially out wide. When MB brought on the wide / pacy players, the outcome was inevitable as Livi couldn't match their pace and directness. I think that as as much to do with fitness and tiredness as it was Livi 'opening up". 

 

MB actually said in his post-match interview that he was going to change it earlier, but wanted to stick with the front 3 as we were creating chances. 

 

I posted on this thread at half-time yesterday that once we got the 2nd goal, the floodgates would open, and that's what transpired.

All based on xG. It's the only objective way - otherwise it's just interpretation: you've just used 'tap-in' in a very loose way. 

 

I think I've had enough. You keep going back to an irrelevant Cifu goal, chances that happened when the floodgates opened - which is outwith the substance of my point - or going off on tangents. 

 

My point will always be: we didn't create enough against the low block. That's it. I'm not wrong. The stats back it up. Even the stats that you used (7 shots in the first half) back it up. 

 

Any evidence you think you've brought to the issue is not applicable, being either outwith the time period of my point or a disallowed goal. 

 

That's not to say it won't develop. I hope it will. In yesterday's game, against the low block, we did not create enough. 

 

I have my doubts that MB can find the solution, because he hasn't done in several years if you go back to Gerrard's time. But that's another point completely. I still hope for the best. 

[compo 6,126]

Stats stats and more stats as long as we score one more than the opposing team that's all that matters.

[Rousseau 9,361]

1 minute ago, compo said:

Stats stats and more stats as long as we score one more than the opposing team that's all that matters.

That's a stat.

[CammyF 6,779]

7 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

All based on xG. It's the only objective way - otherwise it's just interpretation: you've just used 'tap-in' in a very loose way. 

 

I think I've had enough. You keep going back to an irrelevant Cifu goal and chances that happened when the floodgates opened - which is outwith the substance of my point - or going off on tangents. 

 

My point will always be: we didn't create enough against the low block. That's it. I'm not wrong. The stats back it up. Even the stats that you used (7 shots in the first half) back it up. 

 

Any evidence you think you've brought to the issue is not applicable, being either outwith the time period of my point, a disallowed goal. 

 

That's not to say it won't develop. I hope it will. In yesterday's game, against the low block, we did not create enough. 

Hahaha haha- it was you that first mentioned tap-ins as a lose term.

 

I prefer using my eyes, my football judgement over XG. 

 

As for having enough, you keep replying, think your trying to convince yourself more than me to be honest

 

I do wonder how some interpreted games before XG was the "vogue in-thing".

 

I'll take 4-0,every week no matter what you or XG try to convince me otherwise. 

 

In fact I'd take 1-0 every week with no shots on target (it can happen). What would your XG say about that 🤔 🙂

Edited August 13, 2023 by CammyF

[Rousseau 9,361]

24 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Hahaha haha- it was you that first mentioned tap-ins as a lose term.

 

I prefer using my eyes, my football judgement over XG. 

 

As for having enough, you keep replying, think your trying to convince yourself more than me to be honest

 

I do wonder how some interpreted games before XG was the "vogue in-thing".

 

I'll take 4-0,every week no matter what you or XG try to convince me otherwise. 

 

In fact I'd take 1-0 every week with no shots on target (it can happen). What would your XG say about that 🤔 🙂

I thought a tap-in was a shot from a couple of yards out, is it not? A side-footed (half-)volley from the penalty spot is not a tap-in, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's what it would be: an interpretation. Two individuals could look at the same shot and have different views (score or not score). xG objectively tells you how many times someone has scored, from tens of thousands of past shots. I'd certainly trust that over someone's opinion.

 

See - I still don't think you understand my point. 

[Gonzo79 13,589]

Rousseau struggling to get past Cammy's low block on this thread.  

 

It's just like Ibrox because the spectators and bored/frustrated and several are leaving early.  

 

[CammyF 6,779]

10 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I thought a tap-in was a shot from a couple of yards out, is it not? A side-footed (half-)volley from the penalty spot is not a tap-in, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's what it would be: an interpretation. Two individuals could look at the same shot and have different views (score or not score). xG objectively tells you how many times someone has scored, from tens of thousands of past shots. I'd certainly trust that over someone's opinion.

 

See - I still don't think you understand my point. 

A xG model computes for each chance the probability to score based on what we know about it (event-based variables). The higher the xG - with 1 being the maximum, as all probabilities range between 0 and 1  - the higher the probability of scoring.

In practice, that means if a chance has 0.2xG, it should be scored 20 per cent of the time. If it has 0.99xG, it should be converted 99 per cent of the time and so on.

So it's probability and "should" - crack on. 

[CammyF 6,779]

8 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Rousseau struggling to get past Cammy's low block on this thread.  

 

It's just like Ibrox because the spectators and bored/frustrated and several are leaving early.  

 

I wouldn't recommend leaving early. I'm about to "open up" so you may miss Rousseau late 3 goals (or how many XG predict) 🙂

[Rousseau 9,361]

6 minutes ago, CammyF said:

A xG model computes for each chance the probability to score based on what we know about it (event-based variables). The higher the xG - with 1 being the maximum, as all probabilities range between 0 and 1  - the higher the probability of scoring.

In practice, that means if a chance has 0.2xG, it should be scored 20 per cent of the time. If it has 0.99xG, it should be converted 99 per cent of the time and so on.

So it's probability and "should" - crack on. 

OK - you're verging on insulting now. 

 

I'll leave you to it.