RR
·
Bossi Insider
9.6K
·
33K
·
almost 16 years

VAR awards WSW a penalty after the ball deflects into Fox's arm. Duke converts, 2-1

Marquee
4.8K
·
6.7K
·
over 11 years

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

First Team Squad
2K
·
1.9K
·
almost 17 years

Outpost wrote:

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

Agreed. Although I would day CCM look better than expected - unlucky not to get a draw, and WSW worse than expected.

Marquee
4.8K
·
6.7K
·
over 11 years

siac wrote:

Outpost wrote:

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

Agreed. Although I would day CCM look better than expected - unlucky not to get a draw, and WSW worse than expected.

CCM did OK but to be honest they look worryingly similar to what we've been seeing for the last five years.

Marquee
3.7K
·
5.8K
·
about 17 years

Just when you think your in for a Muskrat free season at last he pops up in the bloody commentary team.

Legend
7.2K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

that Galloway replacing Richie de Laet. Eh?

Starting XI
6.9K
·
4.7K
·
almost 10 years

Outpost wrote:

siac wrote:

Outpost wrote:

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

Agreed. Although I would day CCM look better than expected - unlucky not to get a draw, and WSW worse than expected.

CCM did OK but to be honest they look worryingly similar to what we've been seeing for the last five years.

Actually thought CCM looked a lot better than WSW. Mariners had a bit more zip and variety to their game and at least tried to mix things up. I thought WSW looked ponderous and slow, it really just was an odd performance from them in front of a decent crowd and in their brand new stadium. They get the 3 points first up though, so can't have too many complaints. Will be interesting to see in 4-5 weeks how these two sides are tracking. I suspect CCM will be a tougher prospect this time around (although to be fair they couldn't have got much worse!)

LG
Legend
5.6K
·
23K
·
almost 17 years

Victory 0 City 0 Interesting result.

One in a million
4.1K
·
9.5K
·
about 17 years

Lonegunmen wrote:

Victory 0 City 0 Interesting result.

Didn't watch it all, but the last part seemed to have City looking a lot more theatening

Bevan
·
First Team Squad
210
·
1.7K
·
over 16 years

Perth vs Brisbane is the battle of the ugly kits.

Max Crocombe in goal for Brisbane - not sure what happened to Jamie Young.

Bevan
·
First Team Squad
210
·
1.7K
·
over 16 years

Popovic has two of his sons on the bench!

What nepotism!?!?

Marquee
4.8K
·
6.7K
·
over 11 years

Last gasp equaliser for Roar. They've been worth it too. Surprisingly good effort for such a tough away game.

Starting XI
1.8K
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years

ballane wrote:

Just when you think your in for a Muskrat free season at last he pops up in the bloody commentary team.

It wouldn't be the A-League without him

Starting XI
1.8K
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years

Outpost wrote:

siac wrote:

Outpost wrote:

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

Agreed. Although I would day CCM look better than expected - unlucky not to get a draw, and WSW worse than expected.

CCM did OK but to be honest they look worryingly similar to what we've been seeing for the last five years.

I think they looked good. Da Silva and Oar were great to watch!

But, 3 possibly 4 of their back 4 are not good enough, which is a recipe for disaster

Starting XI
1.8K
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years

YoungHeart wrote:

Outpost wrote:

siac wrote:

Outpost wrote:

I know you can't read too much into the first game of the season but both these teams look pretty ordinary.

Agreed. Although I would day CCM look better than expected - unlucky not to get a draw, and WSW worse than expected.

CCM did OK but to be honest they look worryingly similar to what we've been seeing for the last five years.

Actually thought CCM looked a lot better than WSW. Mariners had a bit more zip and variety to their game and at least tried to mix things up. I thought WSW looked ponderous and slow, it really just was an odd performance from them in front of a decent crowd and in their brand new stadium. They get the 3 points first up though, so can't have too many complaints. Will be interesting to see in 4-5 weeks how these two sides are tracking. I suspect CCM will be a tougher prospect this time around (although to be fair they couldn't have got much worse!)

I couldn't believe that Babbel played a back 5 with 2 holders at home to the Mariners on Stadium opening day

I don't think he will last

Starting XI
1.8K
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years

Bevan wrote:

Perth vs Brisbane is the battle of the ugly kits.

Max Crocombe in goal for Brisbane - not sure what happened to Jamie Young.

Yeah, what's with the Perth numbers?!

RR
·
Bossi Insider
9.6K
·
33K
·
almost 16 years

Bevan wrote:

Perth vs Brisbane is the battle of the ugly kits.

Max Crocombe in goal for Brisbane - not sure what happened to Jamie Young.

Crocombe took his starting spot off him with his efforts in pre-season.
Starting XI
1.8K
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years

RR wrote:

Bevan wrote:

Perth vs Brisbane is the battle of the ugly kits.

Max Crocombe in goal for Brisbane - not sure what happened to Jamie Young.

Crocombe took his starting spot off him with his efforts in pre-season.

From an All Whites POV, I'm relieved. Personally I don't think Young is that good, and if Crocombe was worse...

Good to see sanity has prevailed and order has been restored to the All Whites Power rankings universe 

Marquee
2.7K
·
7.2K
·
almost 17 years

Probably not the right place to post but... Has anyone else found the highlights this year are really short and crap? I downloaded the My Football app and couldn't watch any game live (even with Vpn, worked against Brisbane Strikers a couple of months back) and the highlights are just so short. They used to be a lot longer last year and gave you a real sense of the game

One in a million
4.1K
·
9.5K
·
about 17 years

Brisbane were better than expected.

RR
·
Bossi Insider
9.6K
·
33K
·
almost 16 years

Brisbane were better than expected.

From what I saw this weekend (I didnt see the Derby), Sydney and Perth look very good but everyone else seems on par with each other.
Phoenix Academy
140
·
330
·
almost 11 years

Last match of weekend multi: Perth to beat Brisbane. Brisbane with a 95th min equaliser. Typical.

RR
·
Bossi Insider
9.6K
·
33K
·
almost 16 years
Cock
2.7K
·
16K
·
over 14 years

Can someone explain how this expected goals is supposed to work?

RR
·
Bossi Insider
9.6K
·
33K
·
almost 16 years

Jeff Vader wrote:

Can someone explain how this expected goals is supposed to work?

Expected goals - what is it?

Expected goals (xG) is a predictive model used to assess every goal-scoring chance, and the likelihood of scoring.

A xG model computes for each chance the probability to score based on what we know about it (event-based variables). The higher the xG - with 1 being the maximum, as all probabilities range between 0 and 1 - the higher the probability of scoring.

In practice, that means if a chance has 0.2xG, it should be scored 20 per cent of the time. If it has 0.99xG, it should be converted 99 per cent of the time and so on.

A typical xG model takes into account the following event-based variables when assessing the quality of a chance:

Distance to the goal
Angle to the goal
Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header?
In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack)
Has the player just beaten an opponent?

As an example, a close-range shot from a central position will have a higher xG value than a header from an acute angle, assuming all other factors remain the same.

Expected goals - why is it useful?

The idea behind xG is that it gives an indication of whether results are based on sustainable factors like a steady creation of chances, or whether it is down to aspects such as luck or world-class goalkeeping.

For example, if a player has a higher xG figure than actual goals scored, it will likely be a result of poor finishing or bad luck.

By the same token, if a player is scoring more than his xG, it could be because of individual brilliance.

Put simply, xG can be thought of as effectively evaluating the quality of 'chances'. Whereas the ubiquitous 'shots on goal' count does not differentiate between a long-range strike and a missed open goal from two yards out, xG does.

Taken from this: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/expe...

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up