O’brien



Maxie said:
I think the supporting attacking 3 (him, Pritchard and Mcgeady) slow the game down too much in the final third (for a home game) and aren't direct enough.
Want more touches on the ball, want to check back, want to look for the perfect opening, rather than doing it quicker and more direct.

At home we need faster directness to break teams down
Click to expand...
That's the truth and the further all 3 are kept away from the starting 11 the better we will be.
 
mediaclee said:
When you know that there’s one particular player who’s worse than all the rest, it is natural and logical to want him out of the team.

We’ve had people on here wanting O’Nien and McGeady out of the team after today. And both of them are better than AOB. He’s the weakest link in the team, and won’t be playing again once Gooch and Broadhead are fit.
Click to expand...
Nah, he wasn't that bad today and has been more than OK in most matches this season. He probably had a better game than more than half of the rest of the team. t's akin bullying if we're honest, people deciding to go after players en mass like a lynch mob. Its a pretty nasty trait.
 
Far Tibetan Mountain said:
Nah, he wasn't that bad today and has been more than OK in most matches this season. He probably had a better game than more than half of the rest of the team. t's akin bullying if we're honest, people deciding to go after players en mass like a lynch mob. Its a pretty nasty trait.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t think he was necessarily the worst player today. The point is that he’s never likely to be the best on the day, because he’s not as good as the rest of the players in his position. He stands out as being not as good. This is all football related opinion, absolutely nothing to do with him as a person, as he’s actually a decent laugh when he streams. It’s a football forum and this is commonplace, as long as it stays football related and not personal then it is is not bullying
 
Coeus said:
Bit harsh to call it a sitter mind. Do you not think he played ok?
Click to expand...

His xG was 0.9 from the game. One of those efforts was from about 25 yards and I cant remember the other one tbh but suggests the one he ballooned from a couple yards out was close enough to being a sitter. The other chance he 'missed' was the one his touch let him down, sent him wide and then he totally missed the ball altogther.

As a comparison Stewart scored two from an xG of 1.0.

He did have a decent game overall though. First half anyway.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
His xG was 0.9 from the game. One of those efforts was from about 25 yards and I cant remember the other one tbh but suggests the one he ballooned from a couple yards out was close enough to being a sitter. The other chance he 'missed' was the one his touch let him down, sent him wide and then he totally missed the ball altogther.

As a comparison Stewart scored two from an xG of 1.0.

He did have a decent game overall though. First half anyway.
Click to expand...

xG is a funny old metric that I think should only be used as a very brief overview of which team should have won the game. Still think its harsh to suggest the one he stretched for a sitter.
 
Far Tibetan Mountain said:
Nah, he wasn't that bad today and has been more than OK in most matches this season. He probably had a better game than more than half of the rest of the team. t's akin bullying if we're honest, people deciding to go after players en mass like a lynch mob. Its a pretty nasty trait.
Click to expand...

Ok so AOB stats from today:

Least touches of the ball in the team
Least passes in the team
Joint least key passes in the team (0 - Our full backs had 3 between them)
1 succesful dribble
1 header won
3 shots ( joint most but 2 were ridiculous as both had no chance of going through the defender who blocked them 6 inches away and lost possession)
Coeus said:
xG is a funny old metric that I think should only be used as a very brief overview of which team should have won the game. Still think its harsh to suggest the one he stretched for a sitter.
Click to expand...

It's not used/designed to see who should have won the game though. It's designed to measure the quality of any particular chance as is a metric used to help conversations like this in particular.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Ok so AOB stats from today:

Least touches of the ball in the team
Least passes in the team
Joint least key passes in the team (0 - Our full backs had 3 between them)
1 succesful dribble
1 header won
3 shots ( joint most but 2 were ridiculous as both had no chance of going through the defender who blocked them 6 inches away and lost possession)


It's not used/designed to see who should have won the game though. It's designed to measure the quality of any particular chance as is a metric used to help conversations like this in particular.
Click to expand...

Xg has to be done manually, so interpretation and human error comes into effect. It also, when done correctly uses specifics such as part of foot the ball was struck with etc....

In my opinion, its best used in the manner I said, a brief glance at who should have won the game.
 
Coeus said:
Xg has to be done manually, so interpretation and human error comes into effect. It also, when done correctly uses specifics such as part of foot the ball was struck with etc....

In my opinion, its best used in the manner I said, a brief glance at who should have won the game.
Click to expand...

It may we'll be your opinion but the metric is designed to rate the quality of chance.

Which xG model uses part of foot? I've not seen that used before. Even ball height was only introduced recently.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
It may we'll be your opinion but the metric is designed to rate the quality of chance.

Which xG model uses part of foot? I've not seen that used before. Even ball height was only introduced recently.
Click to expand...

Quality of chance added up for each side, shows to me the team had the best opportunites in which a shot occurred. It doesn't register non shots etc so is only a very quick snap shot imo.

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head but the one I looked at spoke of it as common practice. Perhaps not? So without all those factors, its only position on field?
 
Coeus said:
Quality of chance added up for each side, shows to me the team had the best opportunites in which a shot occurred. It doesn't register non shots etc so is only a very quick snap shot imo.

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head but the one I looked at spoke of it as common practice. Perhaps not? So without all those factors, its only position on field?
Click to expand...

Position on field, angle from goal, type of assist, type of play leading to the chance, head or foot and ball height when it's kicked. Stats bomb use postion of opposing players on the pitch as well which is why is the main/best one.

Your first paragraph I agree with and it does show if a team has under performed or overperformed compared to their goals scored. It's the 'should have won' part i disagree with.
 
Sunderland’s current boo boy. Nowhere near as bad as some make out, in fact he’s actually a technically good player at this level. Cant see how or why he would be singled out today, when favourites such as O’Nien and McGeady were utter, utter dogshite.
 
He didn't have the best of games yesterday, however name me a player who did. Tbf he was playing ok until he was asked to move by LJ to accommodate McGeady....but that's another story...
 

Back
Top