Home game +++ 09/02/2019 OUFC v Sunderland match day thread +++

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,571

“ Direct “ Oxford catch Sunderland by surprise.

Don’t buy this direct nonsense - we did what we could to get the ball wide to
Whyte and Graham who tried to be creative. We didn’t bang it long in my view.
Agreed.

If they meant 'direct' as in get it forward quickly with passing over short/medium distance at pace then I'd agree with the term. They clearly mean long ball though. We did the odd long directed pass to utilise our pace on the wings and to mix it up, but with or against the wind we generally kept the ball low, moving it at pace.

Their centre halves on the other hand, hoooooffffffffffff!
 

Joey

New member
Joined
1 Jan 2018
Messages
23
From what I have read, Experimental361 takes these from the BBC live feed, so not entirely nailed on. Looking at Wyscout, they have the Browne chance at 0.48. Im not familiar with the Wyscout model, however I would have anticipated the Browne chance to be larger than that highlighted by Experimental361.

Henry's chance on 59mins and Nelson chance in the second half were our best chances aside from browne's goal. Mackie, Ruffels and Henry all had good chances, however rated low on xG due to being headers (Mackie's chance of 0.15 for example...despite everyone saying 'he should score!').
I like the statistical analysis of things like this but I'm not sure I can trust the figures given. To say Browne had a slightly worse than 50/50 chance of sticking the ball into an open net from 6 yards and almost bang on central seems off. Also it happens so quickly live but I thought Nelson was stretching for his header and was past the back post whereas Ruffels was again quite central and running on to it without much competition from a defender.

Out of interest do you know how the figures are calculated and what metric they use? You mention Mackie's chance being harder as it's a header, is there some sort of rating applied to all headers for example? Pretty obscure but Josh Sargent scored a header for Bremen recently that would be almost impossible to miss here
Assuming there can't be a rating of 1, what would constitute a 0.9 for example? Not having a pop at the stats but genuinely interested to know.
 

Shosho

Active member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
898
I like the statistical analysis of things like this but I'm not sure I can trust the figures given. To say Browne had a slightly worse than 50/50 chance of sticking the ball into an open net from 6 yards and almost bang on central seems off. Also it happens so quickly live but I thought Nelson was stretching for his header and was past the back post whereas Ruffels was again quite central and running on to it without much competition from a defender.

Out of interest do you know how the figures are calculated and what metric they use? You mention Mackie's chance being harder as it's a header, is there some sort of rating applied to all headers for example? Pretty obscure but Josh Sargent scored a header for Bremen recently that would be almost impossible to miss here
Assuming there can't be a rating of 1, what would constitute a 0.9 for example? Not having a pop at the stats but genuinely interested to know.
The primary issue, currently with xG is the data available for league 1 and below. Whilst its an indicator, its not as reliable as those in the top 5 leagues.

Each xG model will evaluate each chance based on many variables. These could be:
Distance from goal
Type of pass assisting the attempt
Body part shot was taken with
Was the ball from a through pass/cross/set piece
Did the player dribble past players and shoot
How many defenders were between the attempt and goal
Is the player using his stronger foot

Different models include different variables...some now including the height shots were attempted from.

The real strength in xG is that it uses historical information from similar attempts to aid the probability. As such, its pretty dangerous to use xG in isolation.

In the specific case of Browne's goal, watching back, he is between the 6 yard box and penalty spot. There is a defender in front of goal as he strikes it. There are 5 defender in the box plus the keeper. The ball is a low cross from a dribble.

I suspect because Browne's attempt was from a cut back that reduced the xG.

With xG we already analyse the match in a similar way. For example, with the Mackie chance, 'he should have scored'. The ball is from a deep cross. He is between 2 defenders. he is 18 yards out. Its is a headers. All of these things reduce the probability of a goal. xG simply assess how many times out of ten the shot goes in from where the attempt was taken. Wyscout have the chance as 0.15.

The Sargent goal had an xG of 0.89 according to understat:giggle:

This is all pretty interesting stuff and is starting to shape how teams play. For example, what if you could train players to get in to better positions to take shots instead of constatl;y shooting from 30 yards? Man City are always scoring tap ins...the closer and more central you are to goal, the more likely to score. You can use the above to Improve finishing, game styles (e.g, crossing is inefficient. Cut back are better).

EDIT: just found this - this will do a far better job of explaining than myself!
 
Last edited:

ubermeistervonmeat

Junior Member
Joined
15 Jan 2018
Messages
144
The one thing in our favour is he clearly has some sort of affinity to Oxford. It’s the only place he has received decent match time and been appreciated.

Another move to the championship to sit on the bench? If, asKR alluded to there could be money on the horizon, I don’t see why keeping Graham would not be possible.

Browne is another matter. I suspect he will get loaned higher up next season but his agents must be sensible folk to encourage him to remain for the rest of the season.
This is a very fair point re Graham - how much game time are Ledson & Rothwell currently getting and Lundstram wasn't even on the bench for Sheffield

On a similar note, Pittman wasn't even on the bench for Pompey and Vaughan was an unused sub - still they all get paid well
 

Oufc28

Active member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
187
Going back to the Mackie header debate I personally think it's a top save. The keeper starts to move to his right and then leaps to his left and it's finger tips that keeps it out. Like others have said the pace on the ball was slow and Mackie not being the tallest fella had to try generate power. A superb cross however from Hanson, that shows the center mid in him.
 

holdsteady

Active member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
985
I think we everyone should just get over themselves and rejoice in taking a point of the mighty Sunderland, won’t be long before we are not playing them again as they will return to the rightful place such a massive club has made there own, bottom of the premier league
 

Whingit

Active member
Joined
14 Dec 2017
Messages
385
Mackie should have scored the header, it was a quality cross. Keeper did well but going from the goal cam thing on twitter, he maybe could have done better.
 

horseman

Active member
Joined
12 Dec 2017
Messages
492
Aguero missed from about 2 feet and there wasn't a Goalie there, great cross though !!!!
 

Foley

Well-known member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,747
Mackie should have scored the header, it was a quality cross. Keeper did well but going from the goal cam thing on twitter, he maybe could have done better.
Ruffels had a better chance?
Either side of the keeper and it was in.
Graham should gave scored. Mackie chance was at least as difficult the other two?
 

Shosho

Active member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
898
Ruffels had a better chance?
Either side of the keeper and it was in.
Graham should gave scored. Mackie chance was at least as difficult the other two?
xG on the Ruffels chance - 0.16
On the Mackie chance 0.15
On the Graham chance 0.15

😆
 

Sarge

Well-known member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
9,656
Going back to the Mackie header debate I personally think it's a top save. The keeper starts to move to his right and then leaps to his left and it's finger tips that keeps it out. Like others have said the pace on the ball was slow and Mackie not being the tallest fella had to try generate power. A superb cross however from Hanson, that shows the center mid in him.
Agree that was a genuinely top class save
 
Top Bottom