I really think JJ is spot on here, yeah. How can Wolves expect to get more points than they have, against teams like this? The big unlucky thing is just the hate some give the club for the okay play from a terrible nature of the draw, so to say.
@@nstans27 they achieved similarly poor results at the end of last season against all levels of PL opponents , thats much more of a concern than their start this year.
Let me guess. You were typing this on a phone, and when you were typing "too much", you hit the backspace button instead of the "m" since they're so close on the keyboard, and you ended up with "toouch"
Its because they brought up his dreams recently in an anecdote about a life coach. I'm worried that Aberdeen is also doing too well and is upsetting his sleeping patterns.
@@TurboThunda not because of tactics though and I'd be careful laughing at other teams when your own team is unsustainably over performing their stats and in for a shock when they regress towards the mean
I think your analysis is a bit flawed. You're explaining why these teams defended badly, but that's already explained by the xG. So Spurs defended badly and let Vardy through on goal, but thats already reflected in the xG. That doesn't explain why their xGD is so different to their Goal Difference. Like yes Man City had lots of low quality shots against Arsenal, but lots of low quality shots equal one good shot. That's the basic principle of xG. The reason they might not have been unlucky is because most of their shots fell to defenders, who aren't as good at finishing.
Does one good shot equal lots of little ones? Just intuitively: Let's say a shot has an xG of 1 (you score it 100% of the time), and some second shot has an xG of 0.5 If you shoot one shot one, you get one goal If you shoot two shot twos, you get a 50% chance of a goal two times. So that'll either be miss miss, score score, miss score, or score miss, ie. 2 or 0 goals 25% of the time and 1 goal 50%. So while you score the same number of average goals, there's a 25% chance you scored fewer than the opposition who took 1 shot. Is that correct maths or did my brain go bye bye
@@LukeConnelly1 well you'll never get an xG of 1, there's always a chance it won't go in. But in terms of odds two shots of 0.5 xG means you will score 75% of the time, so it's equal to a single shot of 0.75xG. Obviously having two shots also gives you the opportunity to score two goals, whereas one shot can only ever score one goal.
I think you've misunderstood the point. He was saying the Leicester game looked unlucky because of how the game went but in reality, it wasn't, the xG was shown as 1.0 vs 1.2 so the 1-1 result was fair. Spurs create this for themselves by playing in high-risk ways but it has the side effect of sometimes making them seem unlucky when the opposition score at a bad moment for them. Spurs have also underperformed their xG numbers but by far less than some other teams so I'd agree they haven't been that unlucky.
@@georgeedwardes5318wrong. Two 0.5xg shots equals 1xg. That’s how expected value works. As you correctly pointed out, there’s a chance you score 0, a chance you score 1, and a chance you score 2. These probabilities balance out to have an expected value of 1 goal.
Yeah Spurs haven’t been unlucky: they’re fine tuning their approach that is highly probable to start to pay dividends with time (as it currently seems)
On the contrary which is luckiest? My pick is Man United. Their underlying numbers suggest they should be 17th so being currently at 13th is them being lucky
According to understat, they should be 11th, but currently they are sitting 14th. They are underperforming their xG and overperforming the xGA, meaning they are actually conceding lees than they are supposed to, while missing more goals than they are supposed to. They are 14th on the xGA table, which is obviously a sign that the tactics are inviting a lot of chances against. Apparently, this is what EtH wants with the 'transition' mentality, but they remain incapable of defending their goal. If I were the coach, I would probably stick another defender down there in order to have more protection, but that would mean EtH would have to change his formation, which is clearly not going to happen due to his stubbornness. Attack should sort out itself when you have good players and relations, just get them closer to each other instead of all this wide play all the time - would allow for quicker combinations and shorter passes, making defenders have to rethink their choices multiple times. I agree with you, they are quite lucky. I think he's going to get sacked before Christmas.
@@andreasdefeuth6737also take into consideration the Tottenham game where Bruno was unrightfully sent off and had to play 10 men for 50 minutes. Conceded almost half our xGA that game alone
I'm sorry but you never actually addressed the Arsenal being unlucky only Arsenal being lucky because of expected goals. Not one mention on whether the yellow cards we received are shared or similar across the league. Shouldn't have even done the Arsenal segment
Arsenal have also already played Villa, Tottenham, City on the road. In a week they played at Tottenham, Atalanta and City. Not to mention Arsenal had a road Thursday CL match prior to City who had a home Wednesday match.. and City were lucky to get the draw due to a bad ref care.
Finally, someone defined what luck is! Thank you! I’ve been saying for years the fixture list is really the only element of luck I.e. when you play certain teams during the season because teams have periods where they’re stronger and then when they’re out of form. Conceding late or missing easy chances isn’t bad luck, it’s just not being good enough
Saying spurs hasn’t been unlucky is weird, yes on the basis of the defence you could say that Spurs has rightfully conceded a couple goals, but what about all the other stats leading up to the attack? Spurs should by far have won against both Leicester and New Castle, sure letting in a goal is due to the way they set up in the build up and possession but the flip side of that is the dominance of the ball and the amount of chances and shots they get, which they haven’t been able to convert in some cases like Leicester where they should have won.
One could argue their injuries have been unlucky, especially when combined with the red card and playing Spurs away, Atalanta, and City away all within a week.
@@tobyphillips4312 Arsenal has more PL red cards than any other team since Arteta became manager. Question Arteta rather than have a conspiracy theory of the PGMOL instructing their referees to give cards to Arsenal players.
@@tobyphillips4312 ok, then. Must PGMOL sending directives to referees to target Arsenal players. That’s why Arsenal has the highest number of red cards since Arteta took over as manager. It has nothing to do with what he coaches players to do 👍🏾
You're not wrong. I love the argument that Arsenal aren't unlucky, because they're good enough to not lose to City and Brighton after going a man down after 45 minutes, and can easily win matches where they're missing some of their best players due to suspension. There's still been no one sent off for kicking the ball away except Arsenal players, despite 100 instances of said infraction, many when the player was already on a yellow. Just stupid, frankly. On top of that, Leicester survived a 5.00 xG thrashing with 0.27 xG because of an absurdly clutch performance by their keeper and 2 equally absurd goals, scored during what was basically their only 2 possessions of the ball inside Arsenal's half in the whole match.
Actually their expected points put them 6th and whilst you can say those stats are skewed because of the sending offs it still wouldn’t put them any higher. They are where they should be
I'd say Spurs have been unlucky as they have effectively conceded from every big chance they have conceded, which while they are more likely scored then not, they are not scored all the time, they have also been massively unclinical
Quite time: The harder we train - the luckier we are. Or something like that. The whole concept of luck in football is just weird anyway. Is it luck or is it good defending/bad finishing?
I'd say Manchester United is a good contender to this list. The offside against Brighton with no impact on wether it's a goal or not. It's just offside since the rules are that way. Could argue if a linesman would make that call he wouldn't be certain wether it hit Zirkzee or not and might've given Garnacho the goal since it had no impact. The red card vs Spurs. Anyone who watches football knows that momentum shifts during a game. Sat with a feeling that United could come back into it since Spurs didn't capitalize on their chances that first half. Saw Allardyce and Meulensteen say the same at Big Sam's pod. Then you think normally some of these players capitalize on their chances. There are injuries. Still playing without a LB.
Playing without a LB isn't unlucky. Just sign a left back who's not injured for 80% of every season. And I personally think it was a red? I know it's a controversial take, but I think if you slip you're out of control and to then dive into the challenge is reckless and endangers the opponent no matter where your foot ends up, because you have no control over where your foot ends up. And you've got lucky on goals not being ruled out for offside players interfering with play before now, there was an absolutely glaring Rashford one a couple years ago. What goes around comes around.
@@jackwhite8204 how on earth are you bringing up ref decisions from previous seasons when they are discussing this season? Last season there was so many penalty decisions United didn't get but got against them anyway. From Romero's handball to Højlund being pulled wrestled down vs Arsenal f,ex. The Rashford one vs City was a blunder by the refs but I can assure you there's plenty of situations that go against United that people don't take into account. You think it was a red for Bruno but none of the pundits or even Dermot at Ref Watch thought so. Even the F.A didn't think it was a red since it was rescinded. If you watch the show they refer to injuries being abit unlucky so you can only count em for other teams? Your bias is only fooling yourself and I am tired of commenting on stuff from people that can't reflect upon a single thought. Feel free to comment back but I won't be reading it.
@@PetterStoners you brought up one decision, I'm relatively sure your perspective on the counterexample I brought up would have been "ah well, it wasn't given, deal with it." Also, you're now bringing up examples from previous seasons of completely different and unrelated situations? My point isn't that you were lucky in previous situations, it's that the one specific situation you were talking about can go either way, as you well know. You could call it luck, but complaining about when it doesn't go your way one time when it has famously gone your way when it shouldn't have in the past seems a little hypocritical. And yeah, I know it's a controversial take. That's why I said "I know it's a controversial take" in my reply. Do you deny that he slipped? Do you deny that he was out of control? Or do you deny that it was reckless and dangerous to lunge in like that having slipped and being out of control? Because reckless and out of control and dangerous tackles should get red cards. It's like a high foot - the contact isn't what should matter, it should be the danger to the opponent. If you have two players for a position, one of whom has been out injured for 60% of his career (Shaw) and the other of whom was out for 80% of last season (Malacia), that's not "bad luck" when they pick up injuries simultaneously, that's "entirely predictable because they're injury prone players", and not selling them and getting players that are more robust is awful recruitment.
It seems a bit of a weird argument to say that Arsenal have been lucky in their unluck when its more explained by the fact that they're just a really good team and that they made changes that helped them get results *despite* all of the unluck. Having referees conspire to send off a man in every game and then having most of their midfield + fullbacks injured in a period of incredibly hard away game against top teams is ridiculous no matter how you look at it, saying "oh well despite it all they're still 3rd" doesn't take away from their unluck.
‘Conspire’? Really, I’m an Arsenal fan and I’m sick of this stupid BS, please stop it. I don’t like the two sendings off this season, but they are examples of human failings and a lack of consistency, nothing more.
@@MrHimfromthere "Conspire" as in that Arsenal have had 2 men sent off for made-up infringements of rules that are never enforced, and that these decisions are coming from referees who have been directly paid by the UAE.
Bit of a waste covering us. We have had by and large the hardest set of fixtures, played city with 10 for 45 which massively skews stats, and the goals we have conceded have in and of themselves been somewhat lucky, for example the past 3 goals we have conceded were two deflections and a worldie that gets scored 1/100. 'If kulu scores the shot that missed' brilliant, top tier. Not even considering we seem to be the only team that have suffered reds due to 'kick the ball away' and 'laws of the game', we have had the worst series of injuries during that period. Any good luck we have had has been purely generated from us fighting against bad luck.
I don't think your opponent scoring worldies means you are unlucky, the opponent may just be really good. I would qualify unlucky as: pgmol decisions, injury, own goal...
I think Arsenal have been hugely unlucky. And we're doing well despite that, which doesn't mean "it all balanced out so its not unlucky" we'd arguably have 4 more points right now and be top by 3 points if we didn't have players sent off twice for no reason
Crystal Palace have been unlucky for sure, their expected points puts them midtable but they're in the relegation zone. They deserved a draw vs Liverpool today.
How do you do a video on bad luck and not discuss the fact that only one team have been getting cards for delaying the restart, and two of those have been red?
Arsenal has drawn against Brighton and City. Both times went down to ten men when they were in winning positions and then ended up drawing. I think they take the title of most unlucky
It is not coincidence or luck/ bad luck that makes players do the exact same thing that gets them the red cards. It is how they are instructed to play.
Surely luck is described as events outside of your control? Not say under performing your xG that sounds like a you problem (the team under performing) I would say Villa have been unlucky in the sense that in the last 2 games alone they should have been facing 10 men but the ref did not send off the opponents against them and that being out of their control could be considered "luck" or rather bad luck in their case. Game 1 against west ham, villa were in control and the ref awards a very soft penalty to west ham they get back in the game and villa no longer dominate, again out of their control so once more bad luck. I guess it comes down to what you define as luck.
There was a time I was keen on watching an athletic video. Now their standard is so bad and there are far better tactical analysis channels elsewhere. Sad to see it they become a click bait standard
Impressive mental gymnastics to reverse-engineer the conclusion that Arsenal haven’t been unlucky. This is a clear case where your conclusion came first, and the “evidence” was gathered up afterward. Just say that you don’t like Arsenal. It’s acceptable to have that opinion. The bonus to being honest is that your analytical credibility wouldn’t be shattered.
For how much I loved Tifo football and how much I was invested in The Athletic, I’m utterly amazed at how they have degenerated recently in their journalistic coverage. Rage-baiting and blatant anti club biases towards specific clubs. John McKenzie in particular just can’t hide his biases even if he tried.
I agree with you about John McKenzie, he’s used his “statistical analysis” to slide in his biases and pass them off as facts. Dishonest guy. He’s even worse when he’s away from the athletic, where there is an expectation to at least try to maintain a faux intellectual integrity, on stuff like Sky Sports.
The problem is though we are all rubbish with our bias as well. You look through the comments and you just see people commenting about how their team isn't lucky. So judging by the comments every single team has been unlucky this year. Maybe John is bias but people only tend to claim that when he says something they don't like about their team so hard to say
Performing below xg or xpts doesn't necessarily mean you're the "unluckiest". Expecially with only 5 games played. I guess title was just bait to talk about setups
I don't really understand this video - Its very inconsistent with their other discussions of 'underlying numbers'. What is the value of xG as a concept to understand how well teams have played if you then point to a very low xg chance going in and say that's the fault of the team conceding the chance and not unlucky? The quality of videos from the old tifo crew has just collapsed since the rebrand - the over focus on shorts is particularly dumb. I really don't need bite size tactical content from a channel that basically only existed for longer from deeper discussions of what's actually happening in the game.
Please don’t do anymore of these, ‘luck’ is made in football just as momentum can turn a game - not something that can be measured by stats and analysis
No they really are. I mean the fact that top clubs like Liverpool get players from Southampton suggests that the players they currently have should be good enough to get good results on there own but they aren't.
