Form table

[Jonathan]

You're on form today Jonathan. Another stupid contribution.

For what it's worth, the issue you are referring to came up when I pointed out that Bannan hadn't had to stick the ball right in the top corner. The ball went in a good couple of feet from the post and because Dahlberg had taken up such a poor position, he still got nowhere near it. Cracking shot but not the unsavable one in a million that some insisted it was.

It's a strange stance you're taking. Trying to make a point by demonstrating that you cannot properly remember an issue you were wrong about at the time. Good luck with that.

An issue that you thought I was wrong about. I think it’s important we highlight that. I was not demonstrably wrong, rather we just had differing views of the same incident. These are not black and white judgements no matter how hard you try to make them into that to validate a sense that you are right and anyone that disagrees is wrong. We’re going beyond points on the board here. It’s a game of opinions, of hopes and dreams that often defy logic. That’s the beauty of being a football fan. But by all means carry on trying to prove how shit we are if that’s what you enjoy.

[dickos1]

Both molyneuxs goals were nothing out of the ordinary, yes he put it in the top corner but it was a good chance and the mk dons goal was an excellent chance which we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored.
The second Walsall goal yesterday was much more unexpected than either of molyneuxs,

Surely that is not the point. This is data, not opinion.

It’s not data
It’s Billy’s opinion that these goals were worldies scored out of nowhere

We are doing angels on pin heads here. The fact is that a) we aren't very good at creating chances - worst side in the division according to xG data. And b) we are a little bit better at actually scoring goals. My comments were solely aimed at musing whether we'd scored a few more than normal that came from positions wouldn't flash up as high xG situations and whether that might explain the slight discrepancy.

We've had three goals this season which were utterly exceptional. The sort where at this level, 1 effort like that in maybe 25 or 50  goes in. Nixon's against Mansfield, and both goals against FGR. That immediately goes a bit of the way towards closing that gap. Molyneux's goals at MK and Grimsby weren't in the same exceptional category, but they were absolutely not ones that you tear your hair out and scream "how did he miss THAT" if they don't go in. See the image below of the MK game. If you think that was "an excellent chance and we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored" then that goes a long way towards explaining why you and I see games very differently.

The mk dons molyneux goal I thought you meant the home game.
But the away game goal was a good goal but nothing you wouldn’t see in a high proportion of games up and down the country.
Similar to Walsall’s second on Saturday

[drfchound]

Both molyneuxs goals were nothing out of the ordinary, yes he put it in the top corner but it was a good chance and the mk dons goal was an excellent chance which we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored.
The second Walsall goal yesterday was much more unexpected than either of molyneuxs,

Surely that is not the point. This is data, not opinion.

It’s not data
It’s Billy’s opinion that these goals were worldies scored out of nowhere

We are doing angels on pin heads here. The fact is that a) we aren't very good at creating chances - worst side in the division according to xG data. And b) we are a little bit better at actually scoring goals. My comments were solely aimed at musing whether we'd scored a few more than normal that came from positions wouldn't flash up as high xG situations and whether that might explain the slight discrepancy.

We've had three goals this season which were utterly exceptional. The sort where at this level, 1 effort like that in maybe 25 or 50  goes in. Nixon's against Mansfield, and both goals against FGR. That immediately goes a bit of the way towards closing that gap. Molyneux's goals at MK and Grimsby weren't in the same exceptional category, but they were absolutely not ones that you tear your hair out and scream "how did he miss THAT" if they don't go in. See the image below of the MK game. If you think that was "an excellent chance and we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored" then that goes a long way towards explaining why you and I see games very differently.

This is reminding me of the time that Barry Bannan tapped one in against us from 25 yards and we needed a series of lines drawn showing how the positioning of Pontus Dhalberg made it the kind of simple chance that would have had XG indicators buzzing around the country.

You really are wasting your time here mate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You're on form today Jonathan. Another stupid contribution.

For what it's worth, the issue you are referring to came up when I pointed out that Bannan hadn't had to stick the ball right in the top corner. The ball went in a good couple of feet from the post and because Dahlberg had taken up such a poor position, he still got nowhere near it. Cracking shot but not the unsavable one in a million that some insisted it was.

It's a strange stance you're taking. Trying to make a point by demonstrating that you cannot properly remember an issue you were wrong about at the time. Good luck with that.

An issue that you thought I was wrong about. I think it’s important we highlight that. I was not demonstrably wrong, rather we just had differing views of the same incident. These are not black and white judgements no matter how hard you try to make them into that to validate a sense that you are right and anyone that disagrees is wrong. We’re going beyond points on the board here. It’s a game of opinions, of hopes and dreams that often defy logic. That’s the beauty of being a football fan. But by all means carry on trying to prove how shit we are if that’s what you enjoy.

Ooh! I thought I'd jolted you into talking seriously for a bit, but then you had to go and spoil it with that last line.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Both molyneuxs goals were nothing out of the ordinary, yes he put it in the top corner but it was a good chance and the mk dons goal was an excellent chance which we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored.
The second Walsall goal yesterday was much more unexpected than either of molyneuxs,

Surely that is not the point. This is data, not opinion.

It’s not data
It’s Billy’s opinion that these goals were worldies scored out of nowhere

We are doing angels on pin heads here. The fact is that a) we aren't very good at creating chances - worst side in the division according to xG data. And b) we are a little bit better at actually scoring goals. My comments were solely aimed at musing whether we'd scored a few more than normal that came from positions wouldn't flash up as high xG situations and whether that might explain the slight discrepancy.

We've had three goals this season which were utterly exceptional. The sort where at this level, 1 effort like that in maybe 25 or 50  goes in. Nixon's against Mansfield, and both goals against FGR. That immediately goes a bit of the way towards closing that gap. Molyneux's goals at MK and Grimsby weren't in the same exceptional category, but they were absolutely not ones that you tear your hair out and scream "how did he miss THAT" if they don't go in. See the image below of the MK game. If you think that was "an excellent chance and we would’ve been very disappointed if he hadn’t scored" then that goes a long way towards explaining why you and I see games very differently.

The mk dons molyneux goal I thought you meant the home game.
But the away game goal was a good goal but nothing you wouldn’t see in a high proportion of games up and down the country.
Similar to Walsall’s second on Saturday

Yes, I agree, but it isn't one that would score a high xG tariff, because the vast majority of efforts like that don't result in goals. Maybe one in 10 or 15 does, if that? Which is the point I'm musing on.

It's not really that important to be honest. What's far more important and what needs fixing for next year is that generally, we simply don't create many good chances.

[NickDRFC]

I sometimes think it’s a shame that posts aren’t more anonymised on here (not that that would work in practice). So many threads are derailed because some posters are absolutely desperate to play the man rather than the ball.

It’s why I stopped reading off topic a long, long time ago but it’s becoming more and more prevalent on the main board.

[ncRover]

Think the truth is we are about where we should be in the table. We aren't as bad as our early-season form suggested, and we aren't as good as our recent run suggested either. We are a below-average League 2 team in dire need of an overhaul, and most of the out of contract players still need shipping out in the summer.

My worry is that we'll fall into a trap with players like Molyneux (not picking on him in particular, he's just the first one who came to mind) and offer him a new contract based on our recent upturn in form, when in reality we should be aiming for better if we want to be anything more than a mediocre basement division side.

In the recent DFP article, it doesn’t sound like
McCann is enthusiastic about many of them.

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/update-on-doncaster-rovers-contract-talks-with-20-players-deals-set-to-expire-4539889

Expecting Hurst to be a promotion standard 1st choice starter would also be a trap IMO.

[MachoMadness]

Think the truth is we are about where we should be in the table. We aren't as bad as our early-season form suggested, and we aren't as good as our recent run suggested either. We are a below-average League 2 team in dire need of an overhaul, and most of the out of contract players still need shipping out in the summer.

My worry is that we'll fall into a trap with players like Molyneux (not picking on him in particular, he's just the first one who came to mind) and offer him a new contract based on our recent upturn in form, when in reality we should be aiming for better if we want to be anything more than a mediocre basement division side.

In the recent DFP article, it doesn’t sound like
McCann is enthusiastic about many of them.

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/update-on-doncaster-rovers-contract-talks-with-20-players-deals-set-to-expire-4539889

Expecting Hurst to be a promotion standard 1st choice starter would also be a trap IMO.

Sounds like he's waiting to hear what the owner's aims are. But really we don't want to get tied into many 2+ year deals on this lot, so it's encouraging to see that from McCann to be honest.

[ForsolongaRover]

I sometimes think it’s a shame that posts aren’t more anonymised on here (not that that would work in practice). So many threads are derailed because some posters are absolutely desperate to play the man rather than the ball.

It’s why I stopped reading off topic a long, long time ago but it’s becoming more and more prevalent on the main board.

Debating rationally is an ideal, but it is probably a fact that there is a significant percentage of humanity who have never really appreciated the extent to which emotion enters into reasoning and thinking. I believe I had a reasonably good education, but it was not something I learnt at school. Even then, I’m sure I drift away from it frequently.

Politicians don’t help by using emotion constantly and I wonder with today’s breed whether they all do so deliberately or because their education never progressed far enough to know better.

Our support for Rovers is based largely, maybe totally, on emotion, and for some, perhaps this overrides everything. So to experience it here is not unexpected, yet to comment intelligently on sport does demand sensible consideration of facts and the exchange of views would not extend far if it were not the backbone of most of the discussion.

For what it’s worth I am impressed with a lot of the contributions and I suppose I’d stop if the good did not outweigh the irritating content and my reaction to that is often emotionally based.

What I do find upsetting is when questions are asked about facts which some people are privileged to know or about previous official statements which appear contradictory, and instead of answering them, or admitting they were inconsistent with later events, they do what you say, “play the man”. When you have made your point clearly, it is plainly disrespectful to claim that the question, politely put, is incomprehensible, thus avoiding answering.

[Pancho Regan]

Think the truth is we are about where we should be in the table. We aren't as bad as our early-season form suggested, and we aren't as good as our recent run suggested either. We are a below-average League 2 team in dire need of an overhaul, and most of the out of contract players still need shipping out in the summer.

My worry is that we'll fall into a trap with players like Molyneux (not picking on him in particular, he's just the first one who came to mind) and offer him a new contract based on our recent upturn in form, when in reality we should be aiming for better if we want to be anything more than a mediocre basement division side.

In the recent DFP article, it doesn%u2019t sound like
McCann is enthusiastic about many of them.

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/update-on-doncaster-rovers-contract-talks-with-20-players-deals-set-to-expire-4539889

Expecting Hurst to be a promotion standard 1st choice starter would also be a trap IMO.

An interesting article that ncRover, thanks for sharing.

I was particularly struck by these words from Grant regarding the decisions to be made around the players out of contract:

It's peoples' careers at the end of the day. And I don't take that lightly. I have to try and get it right for our football club and what we want to do but also I have to think about the family side of it and the people side of it."

There is little room for sentiment in these matters and when the time comes, I'm sure Grant will make the right decisions for the good of the club above all else.
Nevertheless, it is heartening to see that he recognises the human consequences of these decisions and that he takes them seriously.

He made some remarks recently about Jon Taylor's struggles and how being out injured for so long had affected him. Grant said that when he and Cliff arrived at the Club "Tayls was really down, bless him. We had to pick him up".
Again, this speaks volumes to me about Grant as a man, as a person.

It brings to mind a conversation my brother and I had with Caolan Lavery last summer. We'd attended the event to watch the players in pre-season training and to have lunch with them afterwards. Grant had re-joined the club and there was so much positivity around the squad. The players were buzzing and the new signings such as Owen Bailey were champing at the bit to get started.
 
Afterwards, we called into the Club Shop before we set off home.
In there was Caolan Lavery, 'on duty', meeting and greeting supporters.
The contrast was stark - all his team mates training together and CL stood in the Club Shop, trying to put on a brave face for the fans.

We got talking. What a lovely bloke.
His frustration was clearly evident at not being a part of things, not having an opportunity to impress the new gaffer. He spoke of his successful stint at Scunny and how he was so excited when he joined Rovers.

He explained that he had another year on his contract and that he was desperately hoping to get fit enough to get a chance, and to show GM what he could offer.

You couldn't fail to feel for the bloke. All he wanted was a chance to do his job. Just like Grant had said about Taylor.

I remember seeing a couple of Lavery's handful of appearances for Rovers before he got injured. It was at the time when Schofield insisted on playing one man up front and I recall seeing Caolan's frustration at the lack of service he was getting. At one point he got booked for chasing back to try and get the ball off an opponent.

It would be so easy to look back and judge Lavery as a failure for us; a bad signing. But the guy had something, he just didn't get long enough to show it in my opinion.

The conversation with Caolan made me re-examine my attitude towards players who, for whatever reason, fail to deliver on the pitch. Some, of course, don't seem to be arsed - we could all name examples.
But Caolan Lavery doesn't fall into that category, any more than Jon Taylor does.

Inevitably, I expect Lavery will be released in the Summer and will be forced to try and start again somewhere else.
He'll be 32 in October. It won't be easy.

I, for one, will watch with great interest what happens to Caolan and I sincerely wish him all the best, whatever the future holds.
I'd absolutely love to see him on the pitch again, for whatever club, performing well and scoring goals, enjoying once again the career he loves.

 
 

[TheFunk]

xG is the most pointless stat in football. In our fairly recent home drubbing by Stockport we had an xG just slightly less than theirs and ours was slightly higher from open play.

[BillyStubbsTears]

xG is the most pointless stat in football. In our fairly recent home drubbing by Stockport we had an xG just slightly less than theirs and ours was slightly higher from open play.

I've always thought it depends on how the xG figure is determined. If it's just based on the distance from goal of an effort, it's pretty pointless. If it's going to have any value, there needs to be some assessment of where defenders and attackers are relative to each other when a chance is made. Are the defenders in good shape and facing the play, or have they been stretched and turned? The former is easy to automate and I assume that's what free xG data is based on, or something similarly simplistic. The latter requires more than just collating number. It needs assessment and critique and than ain't cheap. So I assume we never see professionally produced xG data unless someone is paying for it.

The (free) figures I've seen for that Stockport walkover were 0.92 for us and 1.65 for them. Which is nonsense, really, given that they had 4 unmarked headers in the 6 yard box and hit the inside of the post, while we had 1 shot on target all day.

[DonnyOsmond]

xG is the most pointless stat in football. In our fairly recent home drubbing by Stockport we had an xG just slightly less than theirs and ours was slightly higher from open play.

I've always thought it depends on how the xG figure is determined. If it's just based on the distance from goal of an effort, it's pretty pointless. If it's going to have any value, there needs to be some assessment of where defenders and attackers are relative to each other when a chance is made. Are the defenders in good shape and facing the play, or have they been stretched and turned? The former is easy to automate and I assume that's what free xG data is based on, or something similarly simplistic. The latter requires more than just collating number. It needs assessment and critique and than ain't cheap. So I assume we never see professionally produced xG data unless someone is paying for it.

The (free) figures I've seen for that Stockport walkover were 0.92 for us and 1.65 for them. Which is nonsense, really, given that they had 4 unmarked headers in the 6 yard box and hit the inside of the post, while we had 1 shot on target all day.

Usually takes into account positioning of the keeper, positioning of the defenders, angle of the ball, height of the ball, is it being taken with a foot or a header, etc. a shot at an angle with a number of players ahead of him, e.g. Molyneux is 0.06xG, so 6% of the time someone shoots with similar parameters they'll score. The goals conceded against Stockport were headers, usually marked, a couple were corners too so crowded boxes, and based on the positioning of the keeper they were deemed to be between 0.2-0.4 xG chances. The hit the inside of the post? Was that the shot from Powell on the corner of the box just before half time? That was a very low chance. With ours Ironside, Bailey and Hurst had decent chances in the first half hour which they put wide, the goal was obviously the biggest chance for us as it was a tap in.

[GazLaz]

xG is the most pointless stat in football. In our fairly recent home drubbing by Stockport we had an xG just slightly less than theirs and ours was slightly higher from open play.

I've always thought it depends on how the xG figure is determined. If it's just based on the distance from goal of an effort, it's pretty pointless. If it's going to have any value, there needs to be some assessment of where defenders and attackers are relative to each other when a chance is made. Are the defenders in good shape and facing the play, or have they been stretched and turned? The former is easy to automate and I assume that's what free xG data is based on, or something similarly simplistic. The latter requires more than just collating number. It needs assessment and critique and than ain't cheap. So I assume we never see professionally produced xG data unless someone is paying for it.

The (free) figures I've seen for that Stockport walkover were 0.92 for us and 1.65 for them. Which is nonsense, really, given that they had 4 unmarked headers in the 6 yard box and hit the inside of the post, while we had 1 shot on target all day.

People just automatically presume xG is just derived from shot location models. Even the shot based models are much more detailed than that now. They would consider type of shot, proximity of defenders etc etc.

For what it’s worth, no model on the planet would think the Stockport 1-5 game was a fair result based on what happened in the game. We had some bad moments but the performance wasn’t as bad as the score suggested. 

[Filo]

I sometimes think it’s a shame that posts aren’t more anonymised on here (not that that would work in practice). So many threads are derailed because some posters are absolutely desperate to play the man rather than the ball.

It’s why I stopped reading off topic a long, long time ago but it’s becoming more and more prevalent on the main board.

One poster in particular, has an obsession, keep it in off topic eh?

[adamtherover]

the annoying thing is that if the ref played the game fairly at sutton, and gave us at least one penno, we would maybe have won,  if the ref hadnt dissallowed a good goal v salford, we would have won, if we had taken one of a first half dominance performance v bradford, we would be sitting here with 7 wins out of 8, form team of the division, absolutley flying and a smidgen away from the top 7.  And thats including having the worst start for many a year, plus an awful xmas period, and the worst injury crisis weve ever had.  Madness how everything has gone against us, yet we will still probably finish in a decent mid table position...

[BillyStubbsTears]

the annoying thing is that if the ref played the game fairly at sutton, and gave us at least one penno, we would maybe have won,  if the ref hadnt dissallowed a good goal v salford, we would have won, if we had taken one of a first half dominance performance v bradford, we would be sitting here with 7 wins out of 8, form team of the division, absolutley flying and a smidgen away from the top 7.  And thats including having the worst start for many a year, plus an awful xmas period, and the worst injury crisis weve ever had.  Madness how everything has gone against us, yet we will still probably finish in a decent mid table position...

It's really not the worst injury crisis we've ever had.