Match Ratings Ratings vs Chelsea

[GutBucket]

Subs looked good but they also benefited from change of tactics and Chelsea tiring and not pressing like maniacs. Royal had prime Cafu and hungover Aurier moments, Kulusevski had a first truly terrible game, Kane and Hojbjerg bad but scored nice goals. Won't give a vote to anyone.

 

[The Scarecrow]

And thats why xG is utter nonsense.

We did have big chances. Sessegnon right after half time, Kane when he was through. xG reflects that in a way other stays don't. Looking at xG alone is like looking at possession stats alone. It doesn't tell you anything about the bigger picture. But it does tell something about the quality of the chances each team had, and to disregard that as nonsense is quite frankly wrong.

 

[tommyt]

Chelsea were good but quality no…they had 3 scent chances and lloris didn’t need to make a save…yes they were better but that’s because of us more than their quality imo

I disagree. Chelsea outplayed us for long periods of that game and had us chasing shadows. It's no shame, it happens. Some of their one-touch (high risk) passing came off, some of thier controlled possession was to to be admired and something to strive toward. Neg rep this post if you like, but we were 2nd best and we were lucky to get the point, though we worked for it.

 

[C0YS]

I still disagree, though. Their chances were much better than ours and more numerous. IMO.

Okay but the point of xG is it shows that statistically that's not really the case. And tbh. It's true. Both Kane, Son and Sess had chances that on another day they would score, and if all three were taken none of us would be talking about us having performed badly. It would infarct be praised as a classic counter attacking performance. But that's the thing about football. Small margins.

 

[Japhet]

Richarlison brought a whole load of energy to our pressing from the front when he came on. Up until then they strolled around at the back with Kane ambling about. I don't think we'd have got back in it without that change.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

We did have big chances. Sessegnon right after half time, Kane when he was through. xG reflects that in a way other stays don't. Looking at xG alone is like looking at possession stats alone. It doesn't tell you anything about the bigger picture. But it does tell something about the quality of the chances each team had, and to disregard that as nonsense is quite frankly wrong.

You're totally entitled to your opinion, mate. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone. I just don't think it's at all useful, and it doesn't even do what it's supposed to do. You can't boil down the 'quality' of a chance into a metric. It's too organic for that. But each to their own.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Interesting that people think we were very lucky. I mean we were lucky but xG wise 2-2 was the correct result.

Agreed.

I think people forget that we are not set up to dominate possession - we are set up to create big chances. When Kane, Son, and Deki are firing, it looks easy. But, we really did have as many chances as Chelsea to score today - despite their edge in possession.

 

[The Scarecrow]

You're totally entitled to your opinion, mate. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone. I just don't think it's at all useful, and it doesn't even do what it's supposed to do. You can't boil down the 'quality' of a chance into a metric. It's too organic for that. But each to their own.

You absolutely can based on statistics. A 0.5 xG chance, which is quite high, will still be missed half the time. It's like when it looked like Trump was gonna win in 2020, and people were like 'the statisticians were wrong again, they didn't predict this' just because he was given only a 10 % chance to win the election. But they did predict that outcome as one of the possible outcomes that would see Trump win. It's a slight digression, but it's a good example of the general population's non existing understanding of statistics.

The 'organics' of a particular chance is accounted for in the statistical distribution. It's absolutely not flawless, but when you play match after match after match, there will be a certain convergence towards a mean probability for a particular chance to end in a goal.

 

[delawarespur]

In terms of the purpose of the thread, ratings, our match was about moments of quality, so Perišić gets it for me with a shout out to Højbjerg. Ivan’s quality was the reason we got anything from the game, and Pierre’s the reason we got back into it. Besides those moments and some other chances, we were dominated until Conte switched system. Front three was terrible Kane goal aside. Romero probably our best defender, absolute quality at times as per with his fantastic instincts, immense 1v1 and tough on the ground, but why was he close to the halfway line for James’ goal. Midfield given no chance by the tactics but worked very hard. And tbh in the little build up success we had, I thought Emerson was at the heart of it and honestly played a pretty good game. It’s why I’m so confused why he’s getting slated on socials. If that was Spence, I think the perception would be different. Won some fouls, great defensively, beat his man a few times, pure quality his cross in the second half that Kane didn’t attack well enough. Some poor crosses and gave away possession quite a few times, but the whole team gave away possession many times. Richarlison injected life and energy in our game and epitomized Conte’s tactical switch.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Not at our best
Away from home
Against a top 4 challenger

These things happen. Getting a point and denying them two is pretty crucial. We move on

 

[GobbyJJ]

Periodic has to start now! Fantastic long throws. I’m not sure but did he hit in swinging corners from either side? Unbelievable quality too. Who needs Ward-Prowse

 

[journeyman]

I voted Richarlison because the game changed when he came on, but no-one was exceptional today. Good cameo also from Perisic. Romero & Emerson solid and I thought Dier was our best in (such a weak) first half.

Delighted to emerge with point. Onwards!

 

[Finchyid]

Interesting that people think we were very lucky. I mean we were lucky but xG wise 2-2 was the correct result.

Sourness said it well…they had 3 shots on target…2 goals and a save from lloris…the only save he had to make

 

[Finchyid]

I disagree. Chelsea outplayed us for long periods of that game and had us chasing shadows. It's no shame, it happens. Some of their one-touch (high risk) passing came off, some of thier controlled possession was to to be admired and something to strive toward. Neg rep this post if you like, but we were 2nd best and we were lucky to get the point, though we worked for it.

Sorry I will disagree..because my original point is valid. Yes they were better but didn’t create many chances..Kane should have scored and lloris made one save..as good as people say they were , they weren’t that good cos they couldn’t kill the game off.. we were shit and managed to get a point

 

[Buggsy61]

I went for Richarlison too. Seems like an awful long time since we have had a quality striker to bring off the bench.
Showed aggression and reinvigorated the front line which was starting to wilt in the heat, along with the Chelsea defence.
He’s a great addition and keeps the incumbent front 3 on their toes, as they know that AC won’t hesitate to bench someone if their performances drop below the desired level.

 

[littlemandefoe]

Emerson & Sessegnon are WOEFUL. Not 'were' but 'are'. Emerson especially. The quicker he goes, the better.

 

[Bulletspur]

Interesting that people think we were very lucky. I mean we were lucky but xG wise 2-2 was the correct result.

I don't give a toss what xG Says. I watched the match and the eyes see what it sees. We were damn lucky. Good result though

 

[eddiev14]

It was clear to me that we still have a fair amount of work to do to be able to go toe to toe with Chelsea. We spent large parts of that game hanging on and it was a tough watch.

I didn’t think we were brave enough today, which was disappointing. Picked up a bit 2nd half when Richarlison came on but there’s still a gulf.

Sessegnon had a torrid time and Emerson not much better. I really hoped we’d go big on a class RWB this summer, you could see the difference Perisic made on the other side with his quality.

Can’t say any of them deserved a MOTM award but, hey, take the point and learn something from it.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

You absolutely can based on statistics. A 0.5 xG chance, which is quite high, will still be missed half the time. It's like when it looked like Trump was gonna win in 2020, and people were like 'the statisticians were wrong again, they didn't predict this' just because he was given only a 10 % chance to win the election. But they did predict that outcome as one of the possible outcomes that would see Trump win. It's a slight digression, but it's a good example of the general population's non existing understanding of statistics.

The 'organics' of a particular chance is accounted for in the statistical distribution. It's absolutely not flawless, but when you play match after match after match, there will be a certain convergence towards a mean probability for a particular chance to end in a goal.

Right, so it's totally not accurate. It can't possibly be. It's just a guide of what might or might not be true. Actually watching a football game is a better test, IMHO, but each to their own

 

[ohtottenham!]

Cucurella's hair ?

Mane of the match.