Match Thread [FT] Rangers 5 (Diomande 2'; Cortes 37'; Dessers 44', 48'; Silva 66') - 0 Hearts

[CammyF 6,807]

Slightly off topic but Kemar Roofe started and scored in B Teams 5-3 with over Dundee B this afternoon. 

Played first 45mins than replaced at half-time (pre-planned before anyone gets their knickers in a twist). 

 

Zac Lovelace also started the game as he continues his comeback from injury.

[Rousseau 9,399]

17 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Slightly off topic but Kemar Roofe started and scored in B Teams 5-3 with over Dundee B this afternoon. 

Played first 45mins than replaced at half-time (pre-planned before anyone gets their knickers in a twist). 

 

Zac Lovelace also started the game as he continues his comeback from injury.

Was the lad that's been linked with Arsenal playing? 

[CammyF 6,807]

23 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Was the lad that's been linked with Arsenal playing? 

Doesn't look like it ; 

 

Munn, Allan, Fraser, Yfeko (c), Grant, Nsio, Lovelace, Strachan, Roofe, Graham, Stevens

subs: Thackery, Hutton, Curtis, McClure, Ishaka, Gentles, Eadie

Edited February 26 by CammyF

[CammyF 6,807]

Question for @Rousseau

 

I read that on Saturday we had a XG for 1.5 but scored 5 goals. Genuinely how is that calculated given we had 12 shots on target (17 shots on goal)?

 

Were we wasteful or were we mega efficient in front of goal? Or is it down to the quality of the goals? 

 

Genuinely confused 😕 😀

Edited February 26 by CammyF

[CammyF 6,807]

Nice one Cyriel 😀

 

 

 

[Rousseau 9,399]

34 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Question for @Rousseau

 

I read that on Saturday we had a XG for 1.5 but scored 5 goals. Genuinely how is that calculated given we had 12 shots on target (17 shots on goal)?

 

Were we wasteful or were we mega efficient in front of goal? Or is it down to the quality of the goals? 

 

Genuinely confused 😕 😀

Incredibly efficient. 

 

xG is based on historical data: to put it simply, it is based on how many times a goal has been scored from a certain position in the past. (In reality an xG model takes into account many variables, not just position). 

 

For example, Fabio Silva's shot had an xG of 0.16, meaning that out of the thousands of past shots from that position, a goal has been scored 16% of the time. You won't see many goals from that position, compared to Dessers' second, for example (0.35 xG). 

 

xG fluctuates match to match (consider the previous match where we had an xG of 4.9, yet only scored 3, against County) , but over the course of several games it is fairly accurate in predicting how many goals we score. 

 

Remember how I said Dessers has an xG of 13 for the season, and has scored 12 in reality. It's fairly close, but I would predict these numbers will come closer over the remainder of the season. 

[CammyF 6,807]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Incredibly efficient. 

 

xG is based on historical data: to put it simply, it is based on how many times a goal has been scored from a certain position in the past. (In reality an xG model takes into account many variables, not just position). 

 

For example, Fabio Silva's shot had an xG of 0.16, meaning that out of the thousands of past shots from that position, a goal has been scored 16% of the time. You won't see many goals from that position, compared to Dessers' second, for example (0.35 xG). 

 

xG fluctuates match to match (consider the previous match where we had an xG of 4.9, yet only scored 3, against County) , but over the course of several games it is fairly accurate in predicting how many goals we score. 

 

Remember how I said Dessers has an xG of 13 for the season, and has scored 12 in reality. It's fairly close, but I would predict these numbers will come closer over the remainder of the season. 

So does the fact we had 12 shots on target not impact the XG, or were these shots from areas that have an incredibly low probability of us scoring? 

 

I, probably like many, came away from the game on Saturday thinking we could have scored more (Zander Clark had 2 worldy saves from Tav and Silva, both shots would habe a low probabilityof scoring), but in "reality" we should have only won 1.5 - 0?? 

[CammyF 6,807]

11 hours ago, Rousseau said:

Previous and now current manager's would have 2 players who'd automatically be in their team selections, Tav and Goldson (Butland would now make that three). 

 

There are reasons for this, and one of them would be availability, something that modern day fans seem to disregard. 

 

Tav and Goldson are almost always available for selection and should receive more credit than they do for this. 

 

Congratulations to Connor Goldson on his 300th Rangers appearance,  hopefully lost more to come. 

[Rousseau 9,399]

8 hours ago, CammyF said:

So does the fact we had 12 shots on target not impact the XG, or were these shots from areas that have an incredibly low probability of us scoring? 

 

I, probably like many, came away from the game on Saturday thinking we could have scored more (Zander Clark had 2 worldy saves from Tav and Silva, both shots would habe a low probabilityof scoring), but in "reality" we should have only won 1.5 - 0?? 

Every shot, off target, blocked, saved, hits the post, scored, has a xG probability.

 

Yes, those shots had a low probability of us scoring from them. On average, we would have only scored 1 to 2 goals from those chances. 

 

That's not unusual: We scored from a few low probability shots, scoring from difficult chances, yet miss a few chances with a higher probability. It chances one's perception. That's why I like xG: it takes out the subjectivity we all see. 

 

Just imagine a penalty: everyone should be scoring every time, but it doesn't work like that; If you add up all the penalties taken over the last few decades, 79% are scored (0.79 xG). In a single match Tavernier can score 2 penalties, over-performing his xG, but over the course of the season he will score around 79% of his penalties. 

[Rousseau 9,399]

8 hours ago, CammyF said:

Previous and now current manager's would have 2 players who'd automatically be in their team selections, Tav and Goldson (Butland would now make that three). 

 

There are reasons for this, and one of them would be availability, something that modern day fans seem to disregard. 

 

Tav and Goldson are almost always available for selection and should receive more credit than they do for this. 

 

Congratulations to Connor Goldson on his 300th Rangers appearance,  hopefully lost more to come. 

The shot map (with Silva's goal highlighted) from the game shows the shots are either wide or outside the box (except for Dessers' two), which are not usually positions we score from: