Jump to content

GC: Canada vs The USA - Sunday, July 18th, 5pm Eastern / 2pm Pacific - Kansas City


Recommended Posts

I think the possession to gilt-edge scoring chance ratio isn't the greatest and where not having a true no. 10 probably is a weakness that we have to address. But a big part of the the reason we didn't force Turner into more saves was because the Americans fouled our players in or on the edge of the box at least three times without us getting a single call and that is going to be tough for any team to overcome (regardless of whether or not one suspects financial motives for the poor decisions). Whether or not Larin was fouled in or just outside the edge of the box or not, I'd rather the ref blow the whistle for the foul for either the PK or a direct free kick from 18.5 yards out than playing a very weak "advantage" of Tajon taking a low percentage shot from a bad angle where the ball is always running away from him.

In any event, the game is useful from a learning perspective, the team should be able to take valuable lessons from this to work on, and the same should be true of the Q-F. I don't care about avoiding Mexico to be honest, they haven't looked great (their win last night came off a somewhat lucky deflection & ES had two great chances to tie it up), I don't even think we should be worried about that, we have to do something we haven't done since 2007 first - win a knock-out game at the Gold Cup.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, VinceA said:

 

That's a fair assessment. Their midfield was non-present but their backline was excellent, especially Sands, Vines and Robinson. That's probably the only takeaway for GGG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Atlantic said:

I’d imagine Shaq Moore’s goal alone was 0.70 xG

Both "expected goals" and "key passes" are stats that I'm extremely skeptical of and personally place very little stock in, my guess is that these stats likely compiled by statisticians who have never played the game. For example, when Larin is shaping up to shoot from the top of the box and the centre of the goal but doesn't get the shot off because he is fouled from behind & it's not called, do they factor that into "expected goals"? And if so, how so, and if not, why not?

I would have liked more scoring chances from Canada & for us to put one away but the suggestion that the US created more chances to score overall is difficult to take seriously, they pretty much scored on their own chance created in the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Both "expected goals" and "key passes" are stats that I'm extremely skeptical of and personally place very little stock in, my guess is that these stats likely compiled by statisticians who have never played the game. For example, when Larin is shaping up to shoot from the top of the box and the centre of the goal but doesn't get the shot off because he is fouled from behind & it's not called, do they factor that into "expected goals"? And if so, how so, and if not, why not?

I've seen you post xG skepticism in here a few times, so here's a good explainer on how it all works: https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Both "expected goals" and "key passes" are stats that I'm extremely skeptical of and personally place very little stock in, my guess is that these stats likely compiled by statisticians who have never played the game. For example, when Larin is shaping up to shoot from the top of the box and the centre of the goal but doesn't get the shot off because he is fouled from behind & it's not called, do they factor that into "expected goals"? And if so, how so, and if not, why not?

Relying on the analytics without the context of watching the match makes for challenging assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RS said:

I've seen you post xG skepticism in here a few times, so here's a good explainer on how it all works: https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/

What is xG?

Very simply, xG (or expected goals) is the probability that a shot will result in a goal based on the characteristics of that shot and the events leading up to it. Some of these characteristics/variables include:

  • Location of shooter: How far was it from the goal and at what angle on the pitch?
  • Body part: Was it a header or off the shooter's foot?
  • Type of pass: Was it from a through ball, cross, set piece, etc?
  • Type of attack: Was it from an established possession? Was it off a rebound? Did the defense have time to get in position? Did it follow a dribble?

Don't have time to take a deep dive here, so asking others who are more familiar this question: Are these the only metrics they use? IF that is the case, it probably doesn't really do much to convince @Gian-Luca. He gave the example of Larin getting pushed (arguably fouled) and that putting him off. I don't see that scenario in the list of variables there, which suggests that xG has limitations and such limitations are a reason to be skeptical and take it with a grain of salt, or at least recognize it's utility is limited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Obinna said:

What is xG?

Very simply, xG (or expected goals) is the probability that a shot will result in a goal based on the characteristics of that shot and the events leading up to it. Some of these characteristics/variables include:

  • Location of shooter: How far was it from the goal and at what angle on the pitch?
  • Body part: Was it a header or off the shooter's foot?
  • Type of pass: Was it from a through ball, cross, set piece, etc?
  • Type of attack: Was it from an established possession? Was it off a rebound? Did the defense have time to get in position? Did it follow a dribble?

Don't have time to take a deep dive here, so asking others who are more familiar this question: Are these the only metrics they use? IF that is the case, it probably doesn't really do much to convince @Gian-Luca. He gave the example of Larin getting pushed (arguably fouled) and that putting him off. I don't see that scenario in the list of variables there, which suggests that xG has limitations and such limitations are a reason to be skeptical and take it with a grain of salt, or at least recognize it's utility is limited. 

It says "some of these characteristics" in the section you quoted, so no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RS said:

It says "some of these characteristics" in the section you quoted, so no.

Thanks. Would the full list of variables explain the Larin example, say a push in the back that goes uncalled? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Thanks. Would the full list of variables explain the Larin example, say a push in the back that goes uncalled? 

I'm not an xG expert, but from my understanding the entirety of each individual situation (or as much as possible) is taken into account when assigning a value to it.

Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a tool to help better understand the game as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RS said:

I'm not an xG expert, but from my understanding the entirety of each individual situation (or as much as possible) is taken into account when assigning a value to it.

Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a tool to help better understand the game as a whole.

That makes sense. I believe they have value and I do put stock in them, for the record. Do they have limitations? Certainly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grigorio said:

Let me add one more thing before I shake this one off and move on. In a game such as this where getting to the goal is real tough, you really notice how few players we have with any confidence or danger in their shot from distance. 

Over the past 5 years or so it's really only been Junior and Arfield who have shown they can be a threat from outside the 18, though maybe guys like Eustaquio and Buchanan can be added to the list. For as dangerous as guys like Larin, David, Davies and Cavallini are if you can keep them outside the 18 you're pretty much guaranteed they won't shoot or if they do it's likely to be weak sauce. Then among our midfield you also won't ever really find Osorio, Kaye, Piette or Hutchinson having a meaningful crack at the ball. 

Contrast that to some of what you see with Honduras/Panama/Mexico and it seems like everyone on the field is equipped with the confidence to have a meaningful go and see what happens if better options don't present themselves. 

 

 

I noticed that too actually. With the exception of tajon's near miss, our only threats from outside the box are on dead balls.

That been said, you don't NEED shots from outside to win, but every now and then it'd be good to see a guy tee off on one from 25 out and threaten the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, finally chipping in. 

Watched on GolTV Spain and the commentator was Spanish, unlike the majority of their GC announcers who are Latin American. Amazingly knowledgeable about some things, even started talking about CPL, described Forge, asked what sort of player might CPL provide to a NT set-up. So knew that, but had to check his sheet on Piette and did not grasp his Spain career. 

Well I was very pleased overall. And irate about that ref for the entire match. He screwed us. Or they did, including VAR. It was as if he'd decided beforehand what would happen. You absolutely have to get into a ref's face when he's playing 12th man for the gringos. 

Comparing to where I was not convinced last outing, Miller was really sharp, going forwards but also handling Dike most of the match--his one header when he got free there was a mix-up and someone too short was on him, maybe Richie. Vitoria as well, really bossed it. Thought Osorio coming on was a plus. Was happy with Tajon's performance, and Larin. Piette was very good and has some things that are very positive for our team. Liked Cav. Think if they'd given us the proper added time, say 7-8, we could have made a better run of it. Being one goal from winning the group was a great proposition and we needed some breaks, a free kick, but we were never going to get it with this ref and them lying deep. Their best players were Sands, Vine and that other CB, forget his name.

True, since they could sit back they did, so we were not pressured up high. We played out and smoothly, with nice changes, passing accuracy and even the backs or mids pushing into space when we had it. I am not sure what we were missing to score, but I think if Larin and Ayo had been able to be together for 70 m we would have gotten one by then. Then the US would have had to push and it could have been a different game for 20 minutes.

Really the only players I would not rate are Fraser, mostly because he was uninvolved for long stretches, and Pasher, who was not ready for what was being asked of him. Fair enough, first time out, cut him some slack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

I noticed that too actually. With the exception of tajon's near miss, our only threats from outside the box are on dead balls.

That been said, you don't NEED shots from outside to win, but every now and then it'd be good to see a guy tee off on one from 25 out and threaten the net.

To use a hockey analogy, you know you don't need to cover the point shot if the guy at the point isn't a real threat to shoot. So you collapse down low, clog up the front of the net and choke out the offense. Having a blast from the point (beyond the 18) keeps defenders honest and stretches them out opening up seams down low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, grigorio said:

To use a hockey analogy, you know you don't need to cover the point shot if the guy at the point isn't a real threat to shoot. So you collapse down low, clog up the front of the net and choke out the offense. Having a blast from the point (beyond the 18) keeps defenders honest and stretches them out opening up seams down low. 

That's a good hockey example but there isn't a (good) soccer team in the world leaving the box open to pressure a shot from 25+ yards out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

That's a good hockey example but there isn't a (good) soccer team in the world leaving the box open to pressure a shot from 25+ yards out.

No but it is a perfectly valid analogy. There are players who tend not to shoot, and once defenders get that clear, they don't challenge them for the shot, they cover the passes. So you have to shoot anyways, and if the ball gets through and goes over, the keeper shouts at them to get out there and contest. And then next time you may have some better passing channels open. 

This works in hockey, also happens to work in basketball with players who won't attempt the threes when they are open. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

No but it is a perfectly valid analogy. There are players who tend not to shoot, and once defenders get that clear, they don't challenge them for the shot, they cover the passes. So you have to shoot anyways, and if the ball gets through and goes over, the keeper shouts at them to get out there and contest. And then next time you may have some better passing channels open. 

This works in hockey, also happens to work in basketball with players who won't attempt the threes when they are open. 

there will be one man covering the man with the ball 25+ yards out as usual, the rest will be covering the box. one guy being able to shoot doesn't change the entire defense. not on a good team, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

I noticed that too actually. With the exception of tajon's near miss, our only threats from outside the box are on dead balls.

That been said, you don't NEED shots from outside to win, but every now and then it'd be good to see a guy tee off on one from 25 out and threaten the net.

With the rise in analytics, shots and goals from outside the box are becoming less and less. The probabilities aren't in favour as most goals come from inside the box. 

Though, the reaction has been to play a low block like the US did yesterday. Intricate passing in the box like Mexico can do is needed but Canada needs D&D to do it.

Crosses are the other option but other than one sequence, it wasn't used. Johnston did it the most while it hasn't been part of Laryea/Buchanan's game. I assume Pasher was put in ahead of Corbeanu because of his crossing but he was far too timid for the occasion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, red card said:

With the rise in analytics, shots and goals from outside the box are becoming less and less. The probabilities aren't in favour as most goals come from inside the box. 

Though, the reaction has been to play a low block like the US did yesterday. Intricate passing in the box like Mexico can do is needed but Canada needs D&D to do it.

Crosses are the other option but other than one sequence, it wasn't used. Johnston did it the most while it hasn't been part of Laryea/Buchanan's game. I assume Pasher was put in ahead of Corbeanu because of his crossing but he was far too timid for the occasion. 

 

good take.

late in the game, after pasher didn't pull the trigger on a cross, fox's camera panned to herdman just in time to catch him yelling "pash! f*cking cross it!". 😆

personally i would like to see us work the ball to the goal line and look for the cutbacks to the top of the box, have larin/cavallini making a run to the near stick to open up the space behind them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, grigorio said:

Let me add one more thing before I shake this one off and move on. In a game such as this where getting to the goal is real tough, you really notice how few players we have with any confidence or danger in their shot from distance. 

Over the past 5 years or so it's really only been Junior and Arfield who have shown they can be a threat from outside the 18, though maybe guys like Eustaquio and Buchanan can be added to the list. For as dangerous as guys like Larin, David, Davies and Cavallini are if you can keep them outside the 18 you're pretty much guaranteed they won't shoot or if they do it's likely to be weak sauce. Then among our midfield you also won't ever really find Osorio, Kaye, Piette or Hutchinson having a meaningful crack at the ball. 

Contrast that to some of what you see with Honduras/Panama/Mexico and it seems like everyone on the field is equipped with the confidence to have a meaningful go and see what happens if better options don't present themselves. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, red card said:

Crosses are the other option but other than one sequence, it wasn't used. Johnston did it the most while it hasn't been part of Laryea/Buchanan's game. I assume Pasher was put in ahead of Corbeanu because of his crossing but he was far too timid for the occasion. 

 

This is probably why Corbeanu didn't come in. Not really a part of his game at the moment.

To be honest I think Guitierrez is the player you want executing this, not Pasher. He delivers some nice crosses from LB at Vancouver and has the intelligence to play as a wing back in our system on the left side. Conversely, Pasher has been playing as an inverted winger for Houston and we saw his tendency was to cut inside.

I guess if you're Herdman Pasher was probably the best bet, but it was well within our power to bring in Gutierrez and we left him in Vancouver. Maybe Herdman decides to bring him in now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 7:53 PM, toontownman said:

Sky Sports in the UK started an alternative commentary option a decade or so ago with fans doing the commentary for that. I don't want catchphrases and just wrong takes due to overt bias clouding judgement. 

Passion is fine but not when it detracts from the game itself. For me they do too often for my liking. I want commentators that are professional and compliment what's going on and bring us as fans closer to what's happening on the pitch, in the players/coaches heads with fact and solid takes not biased conjecture or opinions screaming injustice and over the top reactions to get soundbites. Sometimes the calls are just plain wrong. Myself or people I'm watching with can do all of that. There were several instances today where bias effected ability to judge calls on the pitch and personal opinion misled the viewer. Leave the bulk of the opinion to the half time show and panel. That's their job. 

Now I absolutely like Wheeler in the studio and on Onesoccer today. I don't like bagging on him or Terry but they are far better in the studio than in the commentary booth imo and OneSoccer can do better and it puts off more people than not imo. Not something they need when trying to encourage football fans to subscribe. Maybe general sports fans wont mind it 🤷‍♂️

Could just be my conditioning and what I grew up with too. Maybe people find it refreshing. Absolutely to each their own, that is just my opinion as I should have specified in my original post but give me the other onesoccer commentators more often. Except Hume who is a bit too serious, but I take that back because he literally scares the shit out of me! 

Lol. Hume reminds me of Kevin Bacon in Death Sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...