roversfan99

Weve been wowed by the nature of our wins so far but if we lose today, 4 losses from 8 would be a poor start so we need a comeback. Against the divisions worst we can sense blood and give them a good hiding. Against decent teams we cant keep them out at all. Not good enough.

Pathetic defending all round, Douglas has been appalling, Williams summed himself up tonight with his attempt for the second, Lenihan too rash and Rankin Costello blatantly not a defender. Keeper not convincing either. 

9 minutes ago, Tom said:

Imagine if Bell was putting in the performance that Douglas has, pitchforks would be launched over the stadium!

To be fair, Bell has been putting in shite performances since he joined. This is Douglas' first. Although hes been dismal.

4 minutes ago, Feed the Yak said:

Which one? I'm opting for skybet today and have nothing yet. 

3 minutes ago, only2garners said:

iFollow is fine for me.

Just now, bazza said:

ifollow ok for me, too.

It is the ifollow one, is anyone watching on chrome? I tried a different browser and seems fine now.

Is everyones stream working?

Might be a boost that Ejaria is out for them.

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Shows how much we need Travis back in the squad

Gonna be a long season

Could do with Downing back as an extra bit of craft to have around.

Just tried the stream and not working, presumably because there is still a bit until kick off but is everyone else the same?

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Ayala on the bench on Saturday but not tonight as Wharton is the centre half cover.

Very strange.

He wasnt on the bench on Saturday, Wharton has replaced Bell.

If we are signing Downing, if we had done it far sooner and he would have started today for sure. He would add another creative option centrally that we could do with.

Evans further forward again is not good at all.

I definitely agree that stats have the potential to mislead. A striker with clever movement and the intelligence to get into goalscoring positions, baring in mind that a strikers chances are as much down to his own movement as they are the supply, would compare very unfavourably to one who rarely gets into goalscoring positions in the first place surely?

They have such limited use, certainly in isolation. If a team has low xG and is outperforming that stat, why does that have to level out, perhaps that team has a particularly clinical attack, a player or two who is very adept from long distance, or a particularly good goalkeeper.

Just now, Ewood Ace said:

It's a load of crap. There's a lot of pointless stats out there these days but expected goals is the most pointless and useless of them all. 

That's the only angle Waggott ever looks at things at.

The solution was simple give the refund we had what 8500 season ticket holders and sizeable portion of them would not have requested a refund anyway. Clubs in much worse financial situations than Rovers managed to offer refunds to those who wanted it.

The they couldn't afford it argument no longer holds any traction after they extended contracts of players who never played and then you see the money that has been spent on wages and transfers over the summer. 

As for talking about fans under Waggott fans are not valued or treated like fans. They are purely seen as customers and his only interested in them is how much money he can milk out of them.

I think the debate is often measured on the morality of not offering refunds but financially it made no sense either. Refunds claimed would have been minimal and could have been deferred, yet a percentage of those who feel cheated will now as we have seen not buy a season ticket going forward, therefore any slight saving from denying refunds will be removed.

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Yes! xG does assume everyone has the same level of ability, but for important reasons. I think you may be misunderstanding why xG models exist. 

An example:

I'll start with an example. Let's say Adam Armstrong and Ben Brereton both have an identical chance on goal. Adam Armstrong given the same chance in the same circumstances as Ben Brereton would definitely be more likely to score, as he's the better striker. The xG for this chance for both Adam and Ben would be let's say 0.40 for example. Therefore over a season, if Armstrong and Brereton have a 1.40xG per game stat each, and when one finishes the season on 20 goals and the other has 7, you can see mathematically who the more clinical striker is.

 

What is xG?:

If xG as a figure took into account the ability of the person taking the shot it would create a myriad of problems. For example, good strikers would never be able to outperform their expected goals, every single player would be scoring as expected or below, which is silly. But it also creates huge difficulties in determining who's better than who.

The data for xG is not a data point you're supposed to use in singularity. Over a decent amount of games xG(PG) is supposed to show you whether a striker is finishing chances they should, perhaps even scoring more than is mathematically predicted.

 

What can xG tell us/offer?:

To be a top end striker in the Premier League you have to consistently outperform your xG. In Leeds' 2019/20 side, Patrick Bamford was criticised for his abilities, despite scoring a heavy amount of goals. This is because Leeds' created so many chances for him. Bamford's 2019/20 xG(PG) was incredibly high, abnormally high to be honest, and his goals scored figure simply didn't match. It's why many expected him to fail at Premier League level. (he has actually done well to be fair to him in 20/21).

We're top of the league for xG because of the Wycombe, Derby and Coventry fixtures, where we had very abnormal levels of xG as a team over the 90 minutes. We scored the goals, so yes we got what was expected, but the expected goals are still high in comparison to most teams. Nobody else has stuck 5 past Wycombe for example.

We are top of the goals scored column, so it's only natural that we be top of the xG column too.

For teams like Reading, who's xG is significantly lower than their actual goals scored, xG is a great measurement of their lethalness in attack. We can use xG models to prove statistically how clinical Reading are. They score goals with minimal chances, and they score goals that mathematically they shouldn't score. It speaks to their quality and helps us formulate more fact based views on sides, rather than just sheer opinion.

 

Is it possible to make the quality of a chance an exact science?

The point on how its possible to rank the quality of a given chance on goal mathematically I can definitely attempt to go into. xG takes into account so many factors. Different models work differently but variables like distance from goal, strong or weak foot, position of the goalkeeper, # of defenders back, whether its a clear sight on goal, the type of shot (headed or foot etc.).

Your statement that "You Definitely Can't" make the quality of chances an exact science is both true and not true. An exact science? No. I don't think many analytic enthusiasts would imply that you can ever put much in football down to an exact science. I do think xG offers a lot more than you give it credit for, and I think the shift towards data driven football tactics and training at the top end of our sport speaks to the value that clubs place on things like xG models.  

Anyway, hope this was a nice detailed defence/explanation, always enjoy the chance to go into things like this  And on the specific Sam Gallagher example, it was a bloody dreadful touch, any striker worth their salt has put the ball in their net within two touches of the ball there. Sat there aghast at his inability to control a football.

Thanks for the explanation firstly, certainly a very thorough description so fair play.

So is the xG not even specific to individual games? I presumed that it was implying that ultimately in the games that we didnt win, that we should have done based on xG. It is incredibly flawed because if most of our xG in 7 games came within 3 games, then that isnt fair to suggest that we should be top based on that!

You mention Bamford, what the stat also doesnt factor in is to have so many chances is reliant on him having that anticipation and intelligence to get himself into goalscoring situations, it isnt solely a striker being reliant on service scenario. Take Brereton, he never gets himself into goalscoring positions, so I wouldnt be surprised if his one goal from distance ensures that he is out scoring his xG. Whereas Bamford will have more yet might not take them all. So forwards who keep managing to get into positions to get clear cut chances will be penalised by this method should they not take them all. Andy Cole would have been screwed if his performance was measured like this!

You imply that it is not sustainable to outscore your xG consistently but surely you can if you have particularly clinical forwards?

I totally appreciate data in general and of course it does play a role but I can be incredibly skeptical of its use in football in certain situations. xG just seems flawed in my opinion to the point where it has limited value in my opinion.

1 minute ago, JacknOry said:

Yeah, as I said, I think we have enough good options in the middle now and I assume TM will rotate them due to so many games and depending on the opposition. I just feel that against Forest, we really missed what Rothwell brings - even if it does not always bring an end-result, just him driving forward with the ball is enough to scare teams and cause a bit of panic. His end product has improved from that position too. 

Just my opinion but I believe the mobility, speed and directness of Rothwell is something I would rather have against a side known for letting the opposition having possession before countering with speed and efficiency. We are going to need mobile players that can get up and down quickly. If you could combine ROthwell and Johnson though, you would have a hell of a player. Rothwell has poor finishing while Johnson is great from distance and in the air.

I thought that Rothwell was really poor against Cardiff in the game before when he faced a team defending deep as has often been the case. Although he definitely has attributes that could be of use.

3 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Johnson has looked good with two mobile players alongside him. He just struggles when you have another relatively static player in the 3 with him like Evans. 

I think it's a binary choice between him and Trybull for the deeper role per game. Given injuries and suspensions they should both get a fair crack.

I think we are selling Johnson down the river by playing Johnson in front of the back 4. He is as bad a midfielder as I can remember in recent memory at taking the ball on the half turn, he is not technically very good, he has been robbed of the ball in that role countless times and his passing isnt very good. He has made a career at this level of breaking from deep and scoring from midfield, and whilst he is getting older, I think he can still do that.

He was much better at the weekend with Trybull being the sitter providing a safety blanket behind him.

I dont think that Rothwell has had enough of an impact for us to warrant necessarily coming straight into the team. Coming in for Johnson may be something that could happen although I think that Johnson was fine on Saturday and is a goal threat from that position.

Dack will be a bit of a different story in terms of quality although the length of time out means that instantly starting him wont be a possibility anyway.

Just now, Superunknown said:

Its definitely something to take with a pinch of salt, for example a shot taken when a ball is  dollied up to a player 10 yards out has the same xG as a shot when the ball is fizzed in to a player (provided they take it first time) in the same position. Kind of gives a false picture of the event, there's a quite interesting thing a guy called Ben Mayhew (I think) does on twitter where he tracks xG throughout matches. I sometimes check it if it comes up after a rovers game, there was a case a few weeks ago when a massive xG was given to one of our attempts when it was Gallagher at a full stretch to a bouncing ball across the box, there wasn't much he could do with it but because he was only a few yards out and despite the tight angle it garners a very high xG. 

 

Agreed, that is a perfect example.

Also, if a team is "outperforming" or "underperforming" compared to their xG, even assuming that the expected goals statistic is black and white which of course it never can be, it is only considering chances created and not the fact that some teams have better attacking players who will be more clinical than others!

3 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I sympathise and as someone who hasn’t financially lost out, it’s hard to properly judge. But the club were in a very difficult situation and made a judgement call. They would have angered people whatever they’d done. I don’t necessarily agree with the approach but equally I haven’t got a much better solution. You have to hope fans don’t take it too personally and can see the wider picture. If people choose to throw away their season tickets, fair enough. But punishing Waggott is only punishing the club.

Surely like many other clubs, put the option that they can either have the ifollow links or a pro-rata refund. You can even mention that ideally to take the links to help the club in the press release, and if cash flow is that tight, which it seemingly isnt, then you can offer the refund deferred onto this season, that way people have been reimbursed and it also acts essentially as a deposit practically guaranteeing a season ticket holder going forward. Its not rocket science, and even taking the moral side out of it, from a business perspective, it is a poor decision, especially longer term. 

Just now, Uddersfelt Blue said:

I understand that and you must somehow feel shortchanged but that was a club policy decision taking into account the unprecedented circumstances it found itself in. All season ticket holders found themselves in the same boat and maybe felt somewhat aggrieved that they had paid for something they didn’t get.

Personally I was happy with the iFollow option as an alternative and know others who felt the same. Sometimes you just can’t look at the financial angle but I understand that some may choose to do so. 

This season I’ve taken the decision to again buy a season ticket but certainly don’t advocate that everyone should do the same. Personally it suits me to have games on iFollow as I won’t be attending Ewood for some time. I’ve also bought Match passes for several away games. 
 

 

 

This poster for me is evidence of how Waggott fucked up not only on a moral level, but more importantly on a business level. For the sake of keeping maybe £60, on principle the club has lost a long term customer who could have provided hundreds and thousands going forward. From the fraction of fans that would have preferred a refund, how many £60 savings would it take to make up that lost business? Lots, but I suppose much of that might not be Waggotts problem.

I disagreed with the decision even though I was happy with the ifollow option personally and for my sins, have bought a pass this season. But it doesnt change my opinion that it was another in a long line of poor decisions by Waggott.

3 hours ago, superniko said:

Rovers sitting top of the xG table, with Reading mid-table. It's unsustainable for them to continue as they are (1 shot on target at home vs Wycombe). I'm expecting us to dominate possession and with Holtby playing I think we will create the chances to win this comfortably 

I do think that Reading may well struggle to last the pace, but I have never really embraced the xG table.

I dont get how you can make the quality of chances created an exact science, you definitely cant.

Doesnt it also assume that everyone has the same ruthlessness in terms of taking those chances created? In that it implies that it will level out, for example if a team outperforms its place in the xG, maybe that is just because they are clinical with the chances they have.

Seems like a bit of a nonsense stat to me unless I am missing something.

I dont get how we are top of the league for it either. I dont feel that in any game so far, even if we have been competitive that we havent got what would be expected on the balance of play.

The ball for the first goal on Saturday was outstanding. That and the Elliott pass to Gallagher in the second half were the 2 stand out bits of quality in the game, 2 top class passes.

I still think that Nyambe has to be our first choice right back, you can tell that Rankin Costello is not a natural right back at times defensively, he gets caught out positionally as he did even v Doncaster, there was one moment even on Saturday when he tried to take someone on in a risky position which backfired and Coventry enjoyed a rare counter attack. That being said, he warrants another start tonight for sure.

When he has played further forward I think he struggles to have the real attacking skillset to make an impact, or has done so far, maybe he will grow into a right back over time and refine his positioning and decision making being still very young, or maybe even as a utility man who can cover a few positions. Im not entirely sure at this stage where his long term future lies but he is a very useful member of the squad ans 

I think its very premature calling him a potential Premier League talent, he is still fully establishing himself in the Championship but he should be a contract that we can get done fairly routinely and hopefully soon.

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

They were always on agenda but transfer window was the priority as always. 

Install any confidence? 

 

Yeah, until they are on the official site as having signed new deals, then the concern will still remain. 

Dack has been in talks for basically the last 2 years now.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Yes he will. But he hasn't been contact training yet and will need a few under 23's games 1st. Looking at mid December for him returning for me

Thanks doc. But my point regarding promises potentially made to Elliott over playing central was not really connected to Dack's return, even at the moment without him I see no logic to such a potential promise.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Let's see How Dack returns first. Dack playing any minutes in 2020 is a bonus. 

You keep saying, but he will come back at some point.

But even take him out of the equation, and my point was that I cant see any merit or logic to us promising Liverpool that we play the young winger that we have taken on loan in a central position, baring in mind that we have Armstrong playing central.

1 minute ago, philipl said:

Not an assumption, It happened for 30 minutes against Coventry.

Yeah, but only on what you would think and hope is one of the few times in the season when Armstrong wasnt on the pitch due to having the luxury of giving him a bit of a rest.

Throw Dack into the mix who also is naturally a central player and it seems unlikely that Elliott will get much chance down the middle.

I think that it is more that Mowbray seems to see Gallagher as more of a wide player in the 3, which in my opinion is a very strange experiment, that he put Elliott in more of a free role. But with Armstrong especially and also Dack, I dont see much scope for playing Elliott centrally. Elliott is a wide player anyway so it makes little sense that we could have made any promises regarding where he will play.

At least the contracts are on the agenda but having "began" the process doesnt really instill any confidence, ultimately they have either signed or they havent. Dack has been "in talks" for well over a year. Hopefully we get some good news on contracts soon. 

1 hour ago, philipl said:

I was coming at it from a different angle which is Elliott probably has the ability to play central and giving him a go there might be part of the deal with Liverpool. If he can it means we have goal scoring cover for Arma.

After all, that is exactly what happened when Armstrong was subbed off after 64 minutes on Saturday.

Seems a very random assumption to make that we have told Liverpool that he will play centrally. Assuming that Armstrong is fit, that will not be happening. Elliott looks at home cutting in from the right.

Mowbray seems very keen to persist with Gallagher as a wide man which is an experiment that only he sees any value in.