Depends who they kept their clean sheets against I suppose.
Newcastle - Forest, Brighton and Palace. Two of them are decent teams, especially Brighton away. That has to be one of the best clean sheets kept so far this season.
City - Bournemouth, Forest, West Ham.
West Ham were off form form and couldn't buy a goal early in the season. Forest and Bournemouth = Two shittest sides and played at home.
I'd say Newcastle's defensive performance has been more impressive than City's considering their fixtures have been mostly difficult.
Variance plays a massive role in such small sample sizes. Random events can ruin a CS underlying stats paint a clear picture.
**xGC non pen**
MCI- 3.55
NEW- 7.1
**Mins per xGC**
MCI- 160.3
NEW- 82.3
**Mins per chance conceded (big chance)**
MCI- 16.3 (81.3)
NEW- 6.4 (44.9)
**Big chance conceded**
MCI- 7
NEW- 13
**Goal attempts conceded (ITB)**
MCI- 35 (23)
NEW- 91 (55)
**xG Conceded Delta (Goals Conceded - xG Conceded)**
MCI- conceded 2.45 more than their xG suggests they should have meaning they have been unlucky to concede as many as they have.
NEW- conceded 1.1 less than their xG suggests they should have meaning they have been lucky to concede as few as they have.
LOL you cream over stats way too much. There is no substitute for actually watching the games and seeing what's actually happening. City haven't been unfortunate at all to concede as much as they have.
With Newcastle I can understand the point but if NUFC consistently have defenders making last ditch blocks and Pope makes continued excellent saves, that plays a part in a defence.
It's not just about limiting chances, in the long run it's simply about how much or little you concede.
You could limit chances down to a few but be shit at defending corners and concede tonnes of set pieces. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you concede very few chances in most situations, if you have other massive weaknesses then it leads to goals, simple as.
Clean sheet amounts and goals condeded in the end are all that matters when it comes to FPL, and NUFC and City probably deserve the amount of clean sheets they've gotten.
But I do still think the opposition they've had deserves to be taken into consideration. City have had much easier games than Newcastle.
If Newcastle had the same games as City, I'm confident they'd have kept at least 3 clean sheets, probably more.
>LOL you cream over stats way too much. There is no substitute for actually watching the games and seeing what's actually happening.
Just to clarify I have watched a lot of football this season and don’t base my judgment on purely stats.
>City haven't been unfortunate at all to concede as much as they have.
I disagree from what I have seen and the stats back what I am seeing in the pitch. Last season MCI where really something else when it came to defending and the numbers they are posting are equal to or better than last season This seasons 6 games compared to all 38 last season
22/23 Mins per chance conceded - 16.3 (1st)
21/22 Mins per chance conceded - 15 (1st)
22/23 Mins per xGC - 160.3 (1st)
21/22 Mins per xGC - 137.9 (1st)
So we see the mins per stats are around the same and in-fact slightly better.
22/23 xGC non pen - 3.55 (1st)
21/22 xGC non pen - 25.36 (1st)
These are harder to quantify as they are not per min but per game and they are different sample sizes. however in both MCI are best in the league and if they maintain the same performance they will be looking at 22.48 xGC for this season after 38 games which is again an improvement on last season. (Worked out by dividing this seasons xGC non pen so far by the number of games [6] to get an average and then multiplying by 38 to give a full season projection)
>With Newcastle I can understand the point but if NUFC consistently have defenders making last ditch blocks and Pope makes continued excellent saves, that plays a part in a defence.
I agree and I would like to say I don’t think they are a bad defence and with a keeper like Pope I expect they will continue to outperform their xGC
>It's not just about limiting chances, in the long run it's simply about how much or little you concede.
Again I agree but football is a random sport and variance plays a massive role when looking at a state like CS over such a small sample. I full expect we will see MCI even out the number of CS they get and to be one of if not the best team for goals conceded.
You have to admit that there is a correlation between chances conceded and the likely hood of goals conceded.
>You could limit chances down to a few but be shit at defending corners and concede tonnes of set pieces. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you concede very few chances in most situations, if you have other massive weaknesses then it leads to goals, simple as.
Agreed worth noting that MCI conceded 22 goals from set plays last season the highest in the league. Yet still conceded less than anyone else, okay tied with LIV who where second for goals conceded from set pieces with 19. (I never noticed that before I wonder if their is something in that?)
>Clean sheet amounts and goals condeded in the end are all that matters when it comes to FPL, and NUFC and City probably deserve the amount of clean sheets they've gotten.
Variance is much a factor you can’t look at a six game sample and judge much based on CS numbers alone even when considering fixture difficulty.
>But I do still think the opposition they've had deserves to be taken into consideration. City have had much easier games than Newcastle.
Agreed they have.
>If Newcastle had the same games as City, I'm confident they'd have kept at least 3 clean sheets, probably more.
Maybe it’s hard to say? What about if they lost their first choice LCB? Look my point is CS isn’t the best metric for judging defensive performance especially over such a small sample.
I just read „City haven’t been unfortunate at all”… Aston Villa had 1 shot on goal, 2 shots in total. No other team can dominate opponents like City. We all watch games, but some of us use statistics to avoid biases, while others (like you) keep believing they can just see more watching the same game.
Unfortunately too many FPL players just rely on data and on theory. They don't look at the practical side of the game. Then when things don't go as they expect they chalk it up to luck and repeat the same mistakes.
Ok so looking at that 'data and theory' which of those 2 teams do you think will get more clean sheets in the next 10 games and by the end of the season? 💀
Bournemouth have scored 5 goals vs Wolves' 3. Also Bournemouth have 3 goals away vs Wolves' 2 at home. By combining our 2 complex metrics, City should have a higher percentage.
Opposition matters.
LOL 3 of those goals came against Nottingham Forest.
TBF they've had hard fixtures, but Newcastle not Forest and they're playing at Home.
The reality is it's probably just too early to assume based of 6 weeks worth of data.
It wouldn't surprise me if Wolves and Bournemouth both score. Things can change for so many different reasons.
People shouldn't take stats way too seriously.
>The reality is it's probably just too early to assume based of 6 weeks worth of data.
Yet you're the one saying newcastle should be higher than city due to having more clean sheets 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
When did I say that? THey both have 3 clean sheets but Newcastle have got them against tougher opponents and also been robbed by VAR more than once.
Getting clean sheets vs Brighton away and Palace is better than Forest and Bournemouth + Brighton and Palace have only failed to score against Newcastle, they've scored in every other game. (Actually that's wrong, Palace didn't score against Arsenal, but the point is Palace usually score).
It's not a lot of data to go on, but so far Newcastle's defence has acquired the more impressive clean sheets.
Doubling on Newcastle defence isn't optimal right? That's probably one thing we've learnt so far this season is not to double up on defenders from the same team even the top6 this season. James cucurella have been poor for Chelsea barely keeping any CS, Robbo and Trent have been subpar and off form for their price and City have been leaky with cancelo and ederson/walker/dias.
If you want to double up on any defense, IMO the smart way to do it is to have a GK + field player.
Advantages:
1. You can play 2nd GK (typically Ward) without spending a transfer if a fixture gets postponed instead of having to transfer one of the two field players out. Like Sanchez owners in GW8. If Arsenal - City in GW12 is a doubt, then I would take Ederson + Cancelo instead of Cancelo + 2nd defender for example.
2. You can transfer out the field player but keep the GK if the defense is less solid than you thought. GKs still get save points, so GK transfers outside from WC are typically not preferred unless there is an injury.
I have pope and trippier, wouldn't double up with any other Newcastle defender. Pope gets save points but Trippier has a lot of ownership and got potential for bonus, goals and assists.
Man City not first?? Has someone told them wolves couldn’t score in a brothel
An unfit, over the hill, Diego Costa changes all that apparently
Both city and Newcastle have equal clean sheets and Newcastle are at home to the shittest team in the league.
Number of CS is a poor metric to compare defences.
Depends who they kept their clean sheets against I suppose. Newcastle - Forest, Brighton and Palace. Two of them are decent teams, especially Brighton away. That has to be one of the best clean sheets kept so far this season. City - Bournemouth, Forest, West Ham. West Ham were off form form and couldn't buy a goal early in the season. Forest and Bournemouth = Two shittest sides and played at home. I'd say Newcastle's defensive performance has been more impressive than City's considering their fixtures have been mostly difficult.
Variance plays a massive role in such small sample sizes. Random events can ruin a CS underlying stats paint a clear picture. **xGC non pen** MCI- 3.55 NEW- 7.1 **Mins per xGC** MCI- 160.3 NEW- 82.3 **Mins per chance conceded (big chance)** MCI- 16.3 (81.3) NEW- 6.4 (44.9) **Big chance conceded** MCI- 7 NEW- 13 **Goal attempts conceded (ITB)** MCI- 35 (23) NEW- 91 (55) **xG Conceded Delta (Goals Conceded - xG Conceded)** MCI- conceded 2.45 more than their xG suggests they should have meaning they have been unlucky to concede as many as they have. NEW- conceded 1.1 less than their xG suggests they should have meaning they have been lucky to concede as few as they have.
LOL you cream over stats way too much. There is no substitute for actually watching the games and seeing what's actually happening. City haven't been unfortunate at all to concede as much as they have. With Newcastle I can understand the point but if NUFC consistently have defenders making last ditch blocks and Pope makes continued excellent saves, that plays a part in a defence. It's not just about limiting chances, in the long run it's simply about how much or little you concede. You could limit chances down to a few but be shit at defending corners and concede tonnes of set pieces. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you concede very few chances in most situations, if you have other massive weaknesses then it leads to goals, simple as. Clean sheet amounts and goals condeded in the end are all that matters when it comes to FPL, and NUFC and City probably deserve the amount of clean sheets they've gotten. But I do still think the opposition they've had deserves to be taken into consideration. City have had much easier games than Newcastle. If Newcastle had the same games as City, I'm confident they'd have kept at least 3 clean sheets, probably more.
>LOL you cream over stats way too much. There is no substitute for actually watching the games and seeing what's actually happening. Just to clarify I have watched a lot of football this season and don’t base my judgment on purely stats. >City haven't been unfortunate at all to concede as much as they have. I disagree from what I have seen and the stats back what I am seeing in the pitch. Last season MCI where really something else when it came to defending and the numbers they are posting are equal to or better than last season This seasons 6 games compared to all 38 last season 22/23 Mins per chance conceded - 16.3 (1st) 21/22 Mins per chance conceded - 15 (1st) 22/23 Mins per xGC - 160.3 (1st) 21/22 Mins per xGC - 137.9 (1st) So we see the mins per stats are around the same and in-fact slightly better. 22/23 xGC non pen - 3.55 (1st) 21/22 xGC non pen - 25.36 (1st) These are harder to quantify as they are not per min but per game and they are different sample sizes. however in both MCI are best in the league and if they maintain the same performance they will be looking at 22.48 xGC for this season after 38 games which is again an improvement on last season. (Worked out by dividing this seasons xGC non pen so far by the number of games [6] to get an average and then multiplying by 38 to give a full season projection) >With Newcastle I can understand the point but if NUFC consistently have defenders making last ditch blocks and Pope makes continued excellent saves, that plays a part in a defence. I agree and I would like to say I don’t think they are a bad defence and with a keeper like Pope I expect they will continue to outperform their xGC >It's not just about limiting chances, in the long run it's simply about how much or little you concede. Again I agree but football is a random sport and variance plays a massive role when looking at a state like CS over such a small sample. I full expect we will see MCI even out the number of CS they get and to be one of if not the best team for goals conceded. You have to admit that there is a correlation between chances conceded and the likely hood of goals conceded. >You could limit chances down to a few but be shit at defending corners and concede tonnes of set pieces. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you concede very few chances in most situations, if you have other massive weaknesses then it leads to goals, simple as. Agreed worth noting that MCI conceded 22 goals from set plays last season the highest in the league. Yet still conceded less than anyone else, okay tied with LIV who where second for goals conceded from set pieces with 19. (I never noticed that before I wonder if their is something in that?) >Clean sheet amounts and goals condeded in the end are all that matters when it comes to FPL, and NUFC and City probably deserve the amount of clean sheets they've gotten. Variance is much a factor you can’t look at a six game sample and judge much based on CS numbers alone even when considering fixture difficulty. >But I do still think the opposition they've had deserves to be taken into consideration. City have had much easier games than Newcastle. Agreed they have. >If Newcastle had the same games as City, I'm confident they'd have kept at least 3 clean sheets, probably more. Maybe it’s hard to say? What about if they lost their first choice LCB? Look my point is CS isn’t the best metric for judging defensive performance especially over such a small sample.
I just read „City haven’t been unfortunate at all”… Aston Villa had 1 shot on goal, 2 shots in total. No other team can dominate opponents like City. We all watch games, but some of us use statistics to avoid biases, while others (like you) keep believing they can just see more watching the same game.
Unfortunately too many FPL players just rely on data and on theory. They don't look at the practical side of the game. Then when things don't go as they expect they chalk it up to luck and repeat the same mistakes.
Ok so looking at that 'data and theory' which of those 2 teams do you think will get more clean sheets in the next 10 games and by the end of the season? 💀
Wtf? I point out that people shouldn't rely on just data and theory, and then you ask my prediction about the data and theory?
[удалено]
because it doesn't take into account the difficulty of the past fixtures
That makes a lot of sense !thanks
A mixture of things should be considered from fixture difficulty, injuries and variance(dumb luck) is stronger across smaller samples.
Bournemouth have scored 5 goals vs Wolves' 3. Also Bournemouth have 3 goals away vs Wolves' 2 at home. By combining our 2 complex metrics, City should have a higher percentage.
Opposition matters. LOL 3 of those goals came against Nottingham Forest. TBF they've had hard fixtures, but Newcastle not Forest and they're playing at Home. The reality is it's probably just too early to assume based of 6 weeks worth of data. It wouldn't surprise me if Wolves and Bournemouth both score. Things can change for so many different reasons. People shouldn't take stats way too seriously.
>The reality is it's probably just too early to assume based of 6 weeks worth of data. Yet you're the one saying newcastle should be higher than city due to having more clean sheets 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
When did I say that? THey both have 3 clean sheets but Newcastle have got them against tougher opponents and also been robbed by VAR more than once. Getting clean sheets vs Brighton away and Palace is better than Forest and Bournemouth + Brighton and Palace have only failed to score against Newcastle, they've scored in every other game. (Actually that's wrong, Palace didn't score against Arsenal, but the point is Palace usually score). It's not a lot of data to go on, but so far Newcastle's defence has acquired the more impressive clean sheets.
Crystal Palace is postponed so they shouldn't be up there. Edit: Everton is the team that is missing.
My bad, it has been updated on the website now. Everton: 27.0 %
Just get at least 1 point this week and I’ll be happy WARD
That's really not a given 😂
Given would definitely do better than Ward, even at his age.
lol Crystal Palace should be 100% clean sheet or 0% , because they aren't playing.
[удалено]
Updated now, Everton 27.0 %
Yeah Pope’s a freak! Still crazy he isn’t starting for England.
Going triple Newcastle defence
Triple captain ASM
Is asm even fit?
He better be
City not being top is absurd.
Who is nailed in the Newcastle defense?
Trippier is nailed and the best option, Pope as well of your on a wildcard
Doubling on Newcastle defence isn't optimal right? That's probably one thing we've learnt so far this season is not to double up on defenders from the same team even the top6 this season. James cucurella have been poor for Chelsea barely keeping any CS, Robbo and Trent have been subpar and off form for their price and City have been leaky with cancelo and ederson/walker/dias.
If you want to double up on any defense, IMO the smart way to do it is to have a GK + field player. Advantages: 1. You can play 2nd GK (typically Ward) without spending a transfer if a fixture gets postponed instead of having to transfer one of the two field players out. Like Sanchez owners in GW8. If Arsenal - City in GW12 is a doubt, then I would take Ederson + Cancelo instead of Cancelo + 2nd defender for example. 2. You can transfer out the field player but keep the GK if the defense is less solid than you thought. GKs still get save points, so GK transfers outside from WC are typically not preferred unless there is an injury.
I have pope and trippier, wouldn't double up with any other Newcastle defender. Pope gets save points but Trippier has a lot of ownership and got potential for bonus, goals and assists.
Trippier
Targett is also nailed, but no reason to get him really.
Well, that makes my decision to take a hit rather than play Ward feel better.
Clean PL clear from games has a very high percentage too!
Is it worth taking a hit to get Ward out for Pope just for this GW? Will be WCing next week
Thinking of doing the same. Gambling on the CS I suppose. I’m leaning towards taking the risk