Match Threads Spurs Vs Norwich

[PLTuck]

So did we actually play well in this game? Watching MOTD2 highlights had a few sitters that they missed and the analysis was all about how Norwich deserved more and we had no possession and same XG.

Baby steps? At least we got some chances on target and even scored them...

I don't really look at stats as I think they are generally misused by non professionals. I thought we played well. We conceeded possession, but it was obvious that was part of the plan. Norwich did create a couple of chances and should have scored at least one, but by the same token we could have scored another 3.

We worked hard all over the pitch, looked organised in defence and came away with the 3 points our play deserved, imo.

 

[Duke of Northumberland]

We were definitely the more clinical. They did have three good (one practically unmissable) chances to score, but in addition to our three we also had (off the top of my head) three other very good opportunities, one of which Kane really would have scored 9/10 in previous seasons.

They did have more of the ball, and generally looked comfortable in possession, but I think we were managing workload. There were a few times when we put the full press on and they couldn't get out, so I'd say if we'd gone with the Leeds 2nd half intensity it would have looked a lot more comfortable.

The main take-away for me is that we look like a team again. We weren't ripping up trees but everything we did, we did together, rather than that uninterested individualistic mooching about we saw under Nuno.

A comprehensive report, thanks. That was my impression from the chat commentary but then you look on MOTD2 and it didn't look great- but could be the usual anti-Spurs bias, as we creep up the table unnoticed..

 

[Scissors&Tape]

That's weird- on MOTD2 it looked like both had 1.6 or something like that

There are many different methods for calculating xG. For instance, some sources use only the execpted goals from shots , others consider expected goals given the position in the field, others use a blend. For instance, in the xG chart posted above, Sargent's chance at the end of the match didn't contribute to xG because he muffed the chance and hit his standing leg. That seems wrong to me, if the idea of xG is to estimate the likelihood of scoring in that situation. I mean, Sanchez's goal was almost from exactly the same spot. FWIW, I like xG as a concept, but I think the execution isn't always the best. I'm not confident they are capturing all the variables they should. Also, I wish they'd publish their error bars. My guess is that they don't because they would show that xG should be taken with a huge grain of salt.