roversfan99

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

That's a fairly meaningless statement. If he was given a full season up front in a team that plays to his strengths he might get 15 goals. Last season that would have made him joint top scorer (ish) in our team that finished top half.

He might do, but I think thats a big assumption and not something that correlates with the Sam Gallagher that I have seen, in my opinion.

8 minutes ago, unsall said:

. I would much prefer consistency in positive results and crap performances than decent performances lurching from one extreme to the other.

 

Yep defo says prefer consistency and crap performances.

Again, I took that as being willing to accept "crap" performances if it meant getting consistent results. I am almost certain that no one would prefer crap football over entertaining football assuming the results are the same, and I suspect you are aware of what was meant.

22 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

see Tony Mowbray. 

And it wasn't that attacking. We hardly put teams under the cosh! We also have better players now.

And, yes, Gally will thrive in a team that plays with wingers who can cross the ball. 

I wouldnt say thrive, more do ok, average.

1 minute ago, Oldgregg86 said:

I was one of the few who thought Sam coming back , even for the fee, would turn out to be sound investment. That was on the premise he came back as Danny Graham’s long term successor. I honestly believe if you swapped Gallagher for Ivan Toney the goals would dry up here for Toney and Gallagher would be on the sheet every other week. I think he is being badly misused and his confidence has nose dived from the young lad that turned up here and was a breathe of fresh air under coyle. Sadly I think phillipl is right. He will be let go after his contract expires and like graham start rebuilding his reputation at a later stage of his career .

I certainly agree that the choice to play him out wide very much hinders him, but I dont think that he would be able to take over from Toney and start scoring with similar regularity. Gallagher is not a goalscorer, he doesnt sniff out chances, I dont think he would be prolific regardless of the team he was put in because of that. Armstrong is obviously prolific in this team but if you swapped him for Gallagher he wouldnt carry on as Armstrong is doing or even close. For me, the best you would ever get out of him is maybe just about hitting double figures as he did in the season that he was "a breath of fresh air" which I feel is a little bit exaggerated, for me he was ok, nothing more. 

He lacks the intelligence that Graham had to start thinking about being his successor. Graham could hold the ball up, he could use his body brilliantly, he could link play and he could anticipate where the ball would fall, I think Gallagher is massively lacking on all of those fronts. Gallagher is more mobile (without being particularly fast) and has a better leap to win headers compared to Graham, although again it falls down to intelligence, Graham could use his body to create an angle to nod the ball down intelligently whereas Gallagher rarely can manage that.

I feel that his role should just be as very much a Plan B, I dont think he is anywhere near good enough to be playing week in week out for a top half Championship side. Armstrong may get injured at some point or we may want a second striker if we need a goal, in which case by all means bring on Gallagher.

40 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

He does when he's played up front. 12 goals in a Coyle team is a good return. He's been poorly used by Mowbray. 

Any big forward/target man would look shit on the wing. Put Sutton out there, or Santa Cruz. How would they look. The problem isn't Gallagher. 

"In a Coyle team" actually involves playing in a very attacking side with 2 wide men and 2 forwards, wrecklessly so without any thought of defending.

People often use that season as an example of how he did well under mitigating circumstances but if anything he benefitted from being "in a Coyle side" because it was attacking, and even then his goal record was 1 in 4, so average at best. He also had a really poor spell at Birmingham.

The thing is that this is now very much Mowbrays squad. If the players he has assembled make too many individual errors, even without considering whether that is due to exposure based on style of play, then that is still on him.

To be fair we finished above 16th in both prior years under Mowbray. 12th is about right though and still is miles off target.

9 minutes ago, unsall said:

Well if you read the post I was replying to, you will see exactly that.

I interpreted that not as that we should specifically aim to play crap football, just that its impossible to enjoy the football very much when the results arent good enough.

Im not too sure that anyone has suggested that we should put in crap performances in hope of sneaking a 1 nil.

Is the goal conceded yesterday the earliest in our history? Also has to be difficult to beat in terms of a goalkeeper debuting and letting in his first goal.

5 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

They were sensational finishes, Aguero would have been proud of them. 

AA will only get better. They need to sign him up to another contract pronto because otherwise he'll have to be sold on the cheap. 

Do you think thats there any chance of getting him to agree a new deal. Essentially since he signed as we were promoted, we have been continuously in mid table, and show no tangible signs of pushing beyond that this year.

Armstrong after 1 and a half very underwhelming years has started to go from strength to strength and if he continues to score prolifically, after a year and a half of goalscoring and having just turned 24, he could be in a very strong position assuming we dont go up this season with only a year on his contract to go. If I was his agent or indeed even him, I would advise to hold off and wait and see, his position will only grow stronger.

29 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

We have beaten three very poor teams this season - great to watch but probably giving a slightly false impression. In two of those matches the oponents had 10 men for a fair chunk of the match which helped the goal difference.

We have failed with every other challange we have faced this season.

Home form is bad - even failing to beat Cardiff when they went down to 10 men. We seem to play into the hands of the opposition every time by not breaking down defensive sides and being too open against better sides.

Tony says we are on a journey - yes it's a never ending roundabout. Been here before!

Personally I wouldn't give Mowbray much longer. A change of manager could galvanise this squad into something more productive than it currently is.

Fantastic analogy!

I fear that when Armstrong does go, we then go from being content if Gallagher and Brereton can chip in (which they still dont really manage) to being reliant on them as key sources in our attack.

52 minutes ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Oh absolutely. He'll vindicate his performance to them despite us not having a sniff of the play-offs, through the likes of Armstrong's potential value.

What's the betting when Arma does go that TM will once again return to the 'Dacky off the big man' approach.

Dack like Armstrong will have a year left next summer, I doubt he will stay.

Still fuming about last night. This style of play has allowed to us to run riot against the 3 teams on the lowest points in the league but against better teams it just leaves us hopelessly exposed. The first goal in particular was absolutely pathetic, to concede in that manner was unacceptable and unforgivable.

I am a bit surprised to see Lenihan get all of the blame at centre back, i though Williams was really poor and perhaps slightly worse, his attempt at a tackle for the second goal was embarassing. We know that he can be a capable stand in but hes never good enough to support where we want to go. That being said, the pair just seemed totally exposed by the style. Rankin Costello is a real dilemma, his cross for the second was very good but he is nowhere near competent enough to play as a full back, even though his deliveries come from deep. We arent Liverpool with Robertson and Trent at full back, bring Nyambe back and play him regularly. Douglas was abysmal yesterday too. Pears looked like a little boy in net and for the first 2 goals, especially the second, I would question his role.

Trybull didnt totally convince me in that holding role and Evans cannot play slightly further forward. Holtby was ineffective, hes a talented player but sadly most of his games in a Rovers shirt have been like that. Buckley was a pointless sub, instantly brushed off the ball.

Armstrong surely will be thinking about the next transfer window, prolific goalscorers dont stay forever in mid table teams. Elliott definitely has quality and a great ball for the first. Brereton was again ineffective as he is more often than not. We have too many players that Mowbray has signed that have more quiet games than good games. Dolan was quite bright when he came on, Gallagher was absolutely shocking, technically totally bereft and incapable. And why does he keep getting shunted out wide, only highlighting his technical inability? Baffling 

When does the point come when we compromise on or even abandon these ideas of total football, with a few laughable comparisons to Liverpool thrown in? We dont have the players to be so blaze with our style. And at one point do we roll the dice on the manager, I am not necessarily saying change him now but this has a feeling of a last season before a bit of a factory reset with a few loanees and players approaching the end of their contracts so we cant afford yet more of a work in progress.

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.