Away Match Day Thread 04/02/25: Championship - Burnley FC v OUFC

[Northstandboy]

 

[uptheus]

And 20 minutes in which he hit the bar after making the chance for himself from nothing which is more than our other forward players have done recently.

And it was easier to hit the target. At least make the defender clear the ball, but at least hit the target.

It’s still early days, but what I’ve seen so far I wouldn’t say he’ll be the answer, but I hope in time he does deliver.

Could tell within a few minutes that Bradshaw knows what he’s doing e.g. holding the ball up, creating/making the space (even Harris struggles with this basic forward requirement), and shutting down/restricting the defenders an out ball etc. Apart from that he’s not had any decent service, so our wide players have got to step-up again.

 

[Wallop]

And it was easier to hit the target. At least make the defender clear the ball, but at least hit the target.

It’s still early days, but what I’ve seen so far I wouldn’t say he’ll be the answer, but I hope in time he does deliver.

Could tell within a few minutes that Bradshaw knows what he’s doing e.g. holding the ball up, creating/making the space (even Harris struggles with this basic forward requirement), and shutting down/restricting the defenders an out ball etc. Apart from that he’s not had any decent service, so our wide players have got to step-up again.

Sorry but that's just not true. The XG for that chance was 0.14 (as reported on here and I think The Dub) which is about a 1 in 7 chance of scoring from where he was. If he had hit the target, he would have scored given there was no-one there and so assuming the XG is correct, a professional footballer had a 1 in 7 chance of hitting the target so that isn't 'easier' than not hitting it.

 

[uptheus]

Sorry but that's just not true. The XG for that chance was 0.14 (as reported on here and I think The Dub) which is about a 1 in 7 chance of scoring from where he was. If he had hit the target, he would have scored given there was no-one there and so assuming the XG is correct, a professional footballer had a 1 in 7 chance of hitting the target so that isn't 'easier' than not hitting it.

How the hell can it be difficult to hit the target from 15yards with no opposition players in the way? How the hell can it be a 1 in 7 chance.

How is this calculated?

 

[Wallop]

How the hell can it be difficult to hit the target from 15yards with no opposition players in the way? How the hell can it be a 1 in 7 chance.

How is this calculated?

Fair question but that is what the ‘science’ said. I think the fact a defender was sliding in as he prepared to hit it is taken into account because he had to lit the ball and would have been put off by the opponent’s presence.

 

[TobyDavis34]

xG always slightly errs on the side of caution too. An open goal, 5 yards out, can still only be 0.9xG.

 

[uptheus]

Fair question but that is what the ‘science’ said. I think the fact a defender was sliding in as he prepared to hit it is taken into account because he had to lit the ball and would have been put off by the opponent’s presence.

So, I’m not saying it should have scored, though I think he should have, but just hit the target, so is XG measuring this (target) rather than scoring a goal?

I would rather he had hit the target with the defender having to clear/defend the goal than neither!

 

[TobyDavis34]

So, I’m not saying it should have scored, though I think he should have, but just hit the target, so is XG measuring this (target) rather than scoring a goal?

I would rather he had hit the target with the defender having to clear/defend the goal than neither!

xG is the chance it’s a goal, measure as a percentage point (effectively). 0.0 = never goes in, 1.0 means it always goes in.

0.14 means that it goes in 1/7 times. As proven really, as he didn’t score!

Most one on ones are close to 0.5xG as they tend to result in goals 1/2 of the time

 

[werthersoriginal]

How the hell can it be difficult to hit the target from 15yards with no opposition players in the way? How the hell can it be a 1 in 7 chance.

How is this calculated?

It was from an acute angle and the defender was about to tackle him. Why do people get worked up about such rubbish things?

 

[uptheus]

It was from an acute angle and the defender was about to tackle him. Why do people get worked up about such rubbish things?

it’s not me getting worked up, just my opinion.

Still doesn’t stop him from hitting the TARGET. and this discussion is about Romeny and whether he’ll ultimately make a good forward, so comments are going to be based on goal scoring opportunities, hence this one and other attributes.

Yes, it is very early days, but I’ve not seen anything yet that would make me believe he will be, but I guess only time will tell, so fingers crossed that he does.

I’m just wondering what the XG/equivalent would have been to hit the cross bar!

 

[TobyDavis34]

it’s not me getting worked up, just my opinion.

Still doesn’t stop him from hitting the TARGET. and this discussion is about Romeny and whether he’ll make a good forward, so comments are going to be based on goal scoring opportunities, hence this one.

I’m just wondering what the XG/equivalent would have been to hit the cross bar!

That’s relatively easy.

We have to make one assumption; that you aren’t asking whether he hits the bar OR scores a goal. I cba to allow for that.

Height of a football goal is 244cm. Since the width of the bar and goal are the same, we can work in one axis (Y). The diameter of a football is 22cm and the width of the crossbar (max) is 12cm. To hit the bar with any part of the ball you’re looking at two ball widths + width of the crossbar for a total number of 56cm.

This doesn’t allow for loopy doopy shots that hit the roof of the net / the top of the crossbar behind the goal but I’m not counting those. Neither am I counting the very corner of the crossbar in the x axis. Technically the target outside the goal is slightly wider but I really cba.

To score, it’s 0.14 to hit a target 244cm. 56/244 = 0.23. So 0.23*0.14=0.0322 or around 3.2% of the time.

Or, 1 in around 30 shots.

Is there another match yet?

 

[Wallop]

That’s relatively easy.

We have to make one assumption; that you aren’t asking whether he hits the bar OR scores a goal. I cba to allow for that.

Height of a football goal is 244cm. Since the width of the bar and goal are the same, we can work in one axis (Y). The diameter of a football is 22cm and the width of the crossbar (max) is 12cm. To hit the bar with any part of the ball you’re looking at two ball widths + width of the crossbar for a total number of 56cm.

This doesn’t allow for loopy doopy shots that hit the roof of the net / the top of the crossbar behind the goal but I’m not counting those. Neither am I counting the very corner of the crossbar in the x axis. Technically the target outside the goal is slightly wider but I really cba.

To score, it’s 0.17 to hit a target 244cm. 56/244 = 0.23. So 0.23*0.17=0.0391 or around 3.9% of the time.

Or, 1 in around 25 shots.

Is there another match yet?

I’m suitably impressed by your knowledge and also concerned for your overall well-being by this response!

 

[Wallop]

Premier League Southampton 0-1 Burnley.

Good side!

 

[TobyDavis34]

I’m suitably impressed by your knowledge and also concerned for your overall well-being by this response!

I should add an additional caveat; that’s 1 in 30 when aiming for the bar instead of the goal. I suppose he was aiming for the goal so it’s probably even less of a chance.

 

[uptheus]

That’s relatively easy.

We have to make one assumption; that you aren’t asking whether he hits the bar OR scores a goal. I cba to allow for that.

Height of a football goal is 244cm. Since the width of the bar and goal are the same, we can work in one axis (Y). The diameter of a football is 22cm and the width of the crossbar (max) is 12cm. To hit the bar with any part of the ball you’re looking at two ball widths + width of the crossbar for a total number of 56cm.

This doesn’t allow for loopy doopy shots that hit the roof of the net / the top of the crossbar behind the goal but I’m not counting those. Neither am I counting the very corner of the crossbar in the x axis. Technically the target outside the goal is slightly wider but I really cba.

To score, it’s 0.17 to hit a target 244cm. 56/244 = 0.23. So 0.23*0.17=0.0391 or around 3.9% of the time.

Or, 1 in around 25 shots.

Is there another match yet?

I bloody hope so!

 

[chuckbert]

So, I’m not saying it should have scored, though I think he should have, but just hit the target, so is XG measuring this (target) rather than scoring a goal?

I would rather he had hit the target with the defender having to clear/defend the goal than neither!

Do you mean you’d rather he hit the defender? The xG suggests that hitting the defender or missing were more likely than scoring from that position. It’s not like it was a defender waiting on the goal line to clear it up, it was one flying in to block the shot.

 

[Mike_H]

xG is the chance it’s a goal, measure as a percentage point (effectively). 0.0 = never goes in, 1.0 means it always goes in.

0.17 means that it goes in 1/7 times. As proven really, as he didn’t score!

Most one on ones are close to 0.5xG as they tend to result in goals 1/2 of the time

Surely an XG of 0.17 means it goes in between 5 times (XG of 1/5 = 0.2) and 6 times (XG of 1/6 = 0.1667)?

 

[Scotchegg]

I’m sure the Romeny deal was happening anyway, before GR arrived.
If he was all that GR would have started him by now, these players train day in day out. Helik come in 24 hours after signing and replaces Sam Long at centre back. So GR doesn’t mess about, same with Matos.
Bradshaw similar to Harris but not the answer to what we need.
Based my opinion that Harris was not a natural finisher after one game and he scored v Exeter

Romeny, Matos, Helik and Mills were all targeted long before Rowett arrived. Bradshaw was also on our radar, but undoubtedly, Rowett made that deal easier to complete.

So it's strange that you believe that Romeny is not being selected because he's not Rowetts man, but Helik and Matos went straight in to the team.

Romeny will get plenty of minutes, and I'm sure he'll exceed your expectations on the basis that you've already said that he won't score!

 

[The Mighty Aldo]

Romeny, Matos, Helik and Mills were all targeted long before Rowett arrived. Bradshaw was also on our radar, but undoubtedly, Rowett made that deal easier to complete.

So it's strange that you believe that Romeny is not being selected because he's not Rowetts man, but Helik and Matos went straight in to the team.

Romeny will get plenty of minutes, and I'm sure he'll exceed your expectations on the basis that you've already said that he won't score!

No what I’m saying is GR doesn’t rate Romeny therefore giving him less minutes on the pitch = less if any goals

 

[TobyDavis34]

Surely an XG of 0.17 means it goes in between 5 times (XG of 1/5 = 0.2) and 6 times (XG of 1/6 = 0.1667)?

Yep edited. The chance was actually 0.14 not 0.17, my bad

 

[uptheus]

Do you mean you’d rather he hit the defender? The xG suggests that hitting the defender or missing were more likely than scoring from that position. It’s not like it was a defender waiting on the goal line to clear it up, it was one flying in to block the shot.

NO, just hit the target and let the defender try and stop it.

I think a striker/player on form hits the target, at least.