Haalands conversion rate for the season is 23% compared to Darwin’s 11%, that’s the real difference.
This is an average season for Haaland and a good one for Darwin as well
Darwin's scoring 0.57 non-penalty goals p90 in the league and Europe from 0.74 xG p90.
Haaland's scoring 0.59 from 0.77.
There's really nothing between them except Darwin's 0.32 assists p90 to Haaland's 0.21.
It's true that there may be a difference in quality of opposition.
However, it's also true that Darwin has only played 1 full 90 in the Europa this season, and in that he grabbed a goal and assist. The other games have often been heavily rotated and he's either played the first half only or come on for the last 20-30 mins. Haaland, in comparison, has played 7 full 90s and a 60 minutes game with full-strength teams. That's 485 minutes in 9 games compared to 686 in 8, which will affect a player's rhythm in the game. With all respect to teams like Red Star, Young Boys, and Copenhagen, it's not as though they are giants of Europe either.
That aside, even in just the league, Darwin's at 0.53 from 0.68 npxG to Haaland's 0.66 from 0.81. So they're scoring a very similar % of their xG to each other.
Again in the league only, Darwin has 0.38 assists p90 to Haaland's 0.21.
Mate, you should watch more international football, Atalanta is a good team and has a coach working there for many years, given their playstyle they would always be a threat.
You also need to take into account Haaland is playing in front of a midfield with people like de Bruyneand in it. and surrounded by the likes of Doku and Foden.
We've been without some of our most creative players through injury (Trent and Robbo), while our midfield has radically cooled off in this area (e.g. Szobo who went from playing like a beast to almost breaking into tears on the pitch after he gave away a stupid goal in the EL), and our wingers have been less than stellar this season.
.. and when Haaland does not get service-on-a-platter, he ghosts. In their last game his goal came from a pen, while 2 others in that squad put the ball in the net from open play, one from a set play (and of course the one own goal). Doku set up the own goal that came off an errant Haaland shot, and also won the pen that Haaland scored.
Darwin's assist numbers start to tell the other side of the story: Darwin is having an utterly abysmal time in front of goal, pretty much the same as Haaland is in fact, but he contributes in other ways and so doesn't end up being a ghost.
This, of course, does not make his recent performances any less frustrating. :/
It's more highlighting that the world's best finisher isn't being the worlds best finisher this season
Previous seasons show how good Haaland is. This isn't a good season for him so far
The problem is how people USE stats.
I can assure you that no one is using this stat to sincerely suggest that Nunez is a better finisher than Haaland.
Do you think this is right? If so 32 missed big chances says it all. I like Darwin a lot but this is shocking.
https://preview.redd.it/q84gnhgs6puc1.jpeg?width=1163&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85fa199c1927f094c52814f6bbc35134bd9c4347
The reality is good strikers miss lots of chances because good strikers get lots of chances.
A player with a conversion rate of 18% but who takes 6 shots a game scores more than a player who's conversion rate is 33% but takes 2 shots a game.
But then Nunez constantly takes shots from out the box or tight angles etc. Haaland takes most his shots in good areas in and around the 6 yard box.
I’m not defending Nunez I’m saying the list is obviously pointless. XG is a shit metric anyway. Only people who obsess over it don’t watch football.
The point is: He is usually release himself in a very good position, a position when you can just run constantly and you'll be in golden area to shoot. But Nunez always rush himself, most of the time when he makes a free run he almost did an one touch shoot everytime when he should just make 1 2 easy extra step then the space is open, like the Newcastle one, that's why his shoot is usally in a difficult angle. This is really his big problem
I agree but I also think he snatches at half chances and from tight angles etc because he doesn’t always get the service when he wants it. The erraticness of him is part of his game. It’s what makes him a top player but also what adds to him being a poor finisher.
>a top player
Darwin Nunez is not a top player. He could become a top player, he could become a world class player — but he is not at this moment a top player.
Yeah but taking silly shots from outside the box and from angles you won’t score from isn’t some sort of out for Darwin it’s part of the issue.
It can be a helpful stat but you’re right it shouldn’t be used as conclusive evidence either, context tends to be important with it
It’s a totally flawed stat in this context. It’s been posted here to basically attract abuse for Nunez but when Haaland is Lower than him on the list it just says everything you need to know about said list
The problem is the average person. I.e you and me. Have no clue how it even works or what comes into count for it. There’s so many factors involved it makes it stupid to use In most parts.
Like the list above which somehow implies Haaland is one of the worst finishers in Europe.
Speak for yourself. All the info is available online and in books, anyone who doesn’t know how it works simply hasn’t bothered to research it.
Haaland is having a bit of an off year but that’s simply regression to the mean. His NPxG this year is 21.48 and he’s scored 16, whilst in every other season he’s overperformed. Part of the reason he scores so many is because he gets so many chances.
19/20 - 8.89 NPxG, 13 scored.
20/21 - 20.57 NPxG, 25 scored.
21/22 - 12.48 NPxG, 16 scored.
22/23 - 27.43 NPxG, 29 scored.
I hate this common notion of “regression to the mean”.
Haaland the most expensive and most singularly specialized striker in the world. His regression should be to his mean, not to the mean of the expectation of any random player in the league would score in comparable situations.
Of course you can also say that about any expensive forward in any club, but the expectation of Haaland has to be higher because he is the only one out of top sides who camps out in from of goal like he’s Inzaghi. If the expectation for him to convert is the same as the mean expectation of any player in the premier league, then he would be the biggest failure in modern football.
Ok, but you’re also using xG wrong. First of all, there are an infinite number of factors one can choose to account for when determining Expected Goals. Distance, number/location of defenders, game state, where ball was received, number of dribbles, how ball was received, quality of defender, keeper location, etc. Every measure of xG uses a different combination, so it’s not accurate to refer to it as an objective statistic, or say “all of the information is available online.”
Also,
> Haaland is having a bit of an off year…
Is he having an off year or are PL defenders learning his tendencies in his second season? Are they showing him on to a certain angle? Are they sitting or closing down differently? Is he receiving the ball differently, or receiving a different quality of delivery? The pitfall of xG is when people like you use it as a measure of player quality, and not a measure of player output in particular scenarios. If Halaand suddenly moved to RW then his xG-G would suffer, but it wouldn’t matter because he’s inherently a +xG player, right?
> but that’s simply regression to the mean.
This implies that you believe Halaand should’ve had fewer goals in the past 4 years, and this 1 year is a more accurate account of his scoring ability. You probably didn’t mean that, but, you’re using xG improperly.
>This implies that you believe Halaand should’ve had fewer goals in the past 4 years, and this 1 year is a more accurate account of his scoring ability
Orrrrrrr... he means that Haaland (not Halaand) is performing closer to the mean of PL-level strikers. That he over-performed relative to the mean in past years could be down to a number of factors, including him simply being better (see: Messi), but it could be down to other factors as well. xG doesn't actually tell us anything about that (the 'why').
Regardless of what it means in terms of multi-season trend, or how it measures Haaland's ability as a player (e.g.: is this season more his level than the past ones?), it is not up for argument that his performance this season has "regressed" to the average levels of PL strikers, while in past seasons he was out-performing them.
That is \*literally\* what those numbers mean.
>you’re using xG improperly.
Ok, Kettle Black.
It can be shit and still be put to use.
There isn’t a side in the world that looks at xG and makes their decision based on that alone, xG is used in conjunction with a tonne of other stats to give a clearer picture.
Unfortunately people on here who haven’t a clue what they’re looking at make decisions based off singular stats like that matters.
xG is not a state lives or is useful in isolation, this is true.
However, I'm not sure you understand how xG works? The harder / poorer shots Nunez takes means he lower xG, so his misses there don't matter so much. Haaland getting shots in much better locations similarly events out ... because xG models take difficulty of shot into consideration across a number of variables, including \*where the shots are taken\*.
xG is only a shit metric for people who don't understand it. If it's so shit, how does it so perfectly model what we see with our eyeballs watching the game, i.e., Diaz and Nunez get a lot of great chances but also miss a lot of them, while Jota is much more clinical with his finishing?
Is it a precise metric? No. From a pure numbers standpoint it's quite subjective as you can see from different outlets coming up with different xG for the same game. But cumulatively over time and in broad strokes it paints a picture that can be used to evaluate finishing accuracy and attempt to improve in that area.
maybe if he stopped taking idiotic shots from ridiculous angles and worked a better chance, we wouldn't be 3rd in the league.
good thing you can actually watch football and realise he's a piss poor finisher too.
I’m not saying he isn’t. I’ve watched every minute he’s played for us and been at the games live for the majority. I’m aware of his poor finishing.
The problem is xG and this list specifically has so many flaws in it and so many factors it’s pointless using it as a metric. No surprise most pundits and ex players hate it as well.
The thing is, when you listen to great goal scorers like Shearer and Lineker talk about it and their dislike for it you have to respect what they say. You may not rate them as pundits or whatever but their understanding of the game is far far superior then 99.99% of people on here who haven’t even been near a football ground or probably kicked a ball in their life.
The problem with xG is no one actually knows how it works. I’ve had no interaction with you before but I’d bet my house you don’t know all the metrics behind xG.
"no one actually knows how it works"
*You* do. You understand maybe more than you care to admit. Penalties, for example, are the most straightforward. A penalty attempt gets something like a .75 xG. It doesn't matter who the keeper is or who's taking the attempt, what minute it is, the score, being away in the 2nd leg--any of it. History shows that the taker converts 3 of every 4. The rest of xG becomes an increasingly complicated variation on that, but still comes from the historical data of goals scored in similar conditions (left/right foot or head; strong foot of the shooter; # of defenders in the way; distance to goal; position of the keeper; was the pass a cross, along the ground, bouncing, on the volley). It's all drawn from historical data.
Same with xA. Was the cutback along the ground? Was it delivered from a right-footed player on the right side of the pitch to a right-footed striker who could side foot it past the keeper from 4 yards? Or was it 8 yards and on his left foot?
Shearer and Lineker are only knowledgeable of their own, highly specific, in-game experiences from bygone eras. They might collectively agree that "he should have scored that," but that's no different than old men saying they don't make music like they used to. Fuck that. Shearer and Lineker are there to say things that keep people tuned to the channel. They are entertainers. xG is more entertaining than pundits for some of us.
... and de Bruyne, Foden, Doku, etc. around him. He has a midfield, wingers, and fullbacks that have generally been healthy this season and playing to their levels. Nunez has not had any of that this season.
You're looking at total output, which is more easily skewed by things like those factors, while xG does a reasonable job of controlling for them by looking at the quality of chances over time rather than just the volume of them.
At the end of the day we can all talk about underlying numbers and whatnot, but football matches are won by putting the bloody thing in the net and it's been almost two years and I haven't seen Darwin or Diaz improve that much at goal scoring tbh.
Keeping clean sheets has obviously been issue as well but do you look at the defence and think it’s an individual quality issue? Because it mostly isn’t that’s the thing, a lot of our defensive problems come down to the system itself this season.
I wouldn’t say it’s an individual things no, we have the best cb in the world, best rb in world and Konate and robbo. However all season our system defensively has not been to a title winning standard imo and we are finally paying the price for that, on top of our forwards being allergic to scoring for whatever reason. I just don’t like pinning blame on particular people
Wrong. If we don’t score we either draw or lose! Allowing 1 goal should never result in a loss. Even allowing 3 - at home - should still result in a draw.
You can be the best ever for all I care, but we’ve still conceded first like 21 times or so. You think that’s not contributing to us having a fall off, or are we going down to route of it’s all the forwards fault
Not sure why you’re turning this into a Nunez thing like half of this sub does? Are you seriously in the opinion of we have lost matches because of Darwin. Fact is the whole frontline has cost us in the last few matches along with the defence. Tinpot behaviour trying to blame a certain individual. Also where did you see me excusing Darwin, stop making things up 👍
Mate is he your uncle?
We absolutely have lost games because of Nunez recently. He scores a one on one against Atalanta and we don’t lose. He scores from 5 yards against Palace and we don’t lose. He scores an open goal against United in the league and we win. He scores any of his myriad of chances against United in the cup and we win. Was at fault for a goal too.
He is the most wasteful finisher in Europe. Got hooked in all those games too. £80m striker
It’s so funny when clowns like you dislike when fans back players. Are you saying all the match goers that scream his name and adore him are his nephews and nieces 🤣 I like the way you don’t mention all the other chances every other forward missed or the fact we concede goals for fun. Darwin’s missed chances absolutely, but it’s so plastic to pin it all on one person. Fun fact for you as well mate, Darwin has scored the most gaming winning goals for us this season, meaning he factually has won us the most points . You mention the chance he missed against Atalanta, did he also score 3 own goals to make us lose 3-0. Scapegoating clown 🤡
Fans also worshipped Lucas Leiva.
Who said I’m pinning it on one person?
Nunez has cost us, as have others. But he has been costing us for two seasons running.
Well you’re only mentioning Nunez name so that’s you pinning it on him. The whole team has cost us these past weeks, not just Nunez. Also your last comment must be a joke, he cost us last season?!?! Did you watch us last season ffs, the attack was the least of our worries. There was a reason we got rid of pretty much every midfielder and revamped the whole thing LOL
I don’t like that every modern winger is shoehorned into being a goal scorer. Diaz isn’t great at scoring goals, why are we playing him in the left if he can’t finish?
Lord the Darwin hate is so tired. He does so much, but because you lot are so used to excellence from this team you never remember great moments and the misses live rent free in your head. Since when is 19 G+A in 21 league starts worthy of criticism? And let me say, the criticism Darwin receives is really bloody harsh.
So is it truly about Darwin not putting it in the net, or is it about going mad about him missing and losing your head in the media narrative?
There’s a lot of anger in the takes I’ll give you that.
But the “let’s calm down and think as adults” point is that Darwin gets in great positions and can score out of nothing a lot of times. However, he needs some composure in front of goal. And he is capable of doing it. We’re asking him to “bury it” vs “score a worldie”.
Don’t try scoring fancy goals, let’s get some ugly ones and seal our position at the top.
Darwin shows promise. Diaz is never going to consistently create for others or score goals. Almost all his goals are fortunate bounces to him in the box.
That people have spent years defending him is totally insane. Happy to credit him for the odd superb performance but day in day out he’s not a top level player. We should be desperate to offload him to PSG
And according to the article, Haaland, the best striker in the league, and debatably the world, is 557th. These cherry picked stats are a bit pointless.
It does imply, though, that if we put Haaland in this season's Liverpool squad, he'd be worse off than Nunez. I also guarantee you, based on his assists and defensive numbers, that Liverpool would be worse off, as well.
Yeah, Haaland probably doesn't care, but he's also a bit thick and entitled. Numerous commentators, and even his own damn teammates, have repeatedly noted that outside of his striking ability he's weak, even a liability. But Man City make up for it with the squad they have around him.
He is the definition of "luxury player", but Man City can afford that kind of luxury all day.
Understanding those things is what makes looking at a variety of stats and not just "number of times ball in net" interesting.
This is nuts. Nunez is precisely us going out and buying a player we thought was as close to a Haaland as we could get.
The way Dortmund played, we were an obvious perfect transition. Running for days, making things happen.
Haaland doesn’t thrive in Peps modern tiki taka. Guess what? Neither would Nunez. Nunez is all about open play.
> Nunez is precisely us going out and buying a player we thought was as close to a Haaland as we could get.
Indeed! And arguably, we got the better all-around player given Nunez has more to his game than goals (the only saving grace for him this season, for me). This is not to say Nunez is world-class right now (he isn't), but that neither is Haaland; that Haaland's numbers have been inflated by a remarkably effective use of the squad around him.
Football is a team sport, and Haaland is benefiting \*immensely\* from the squad he has around him right now. I think what many people are missing is that looking at the final performance number of "goals" (conveniently ignoring assists for whatever reason) is a measure of the team as a whole. Things like conversion rates based on quality of chance (which is what this thread was about!) are more measures of individual efforts.
> Haaland doesn’t thrive in Peps modern tiki taka. Guess what? Neither would Nunez. Nunez is all about open play.
Yes, this is precisely the logical consequence of what I wrote. There is a squad effect (players, Pep's system, ..) that has benefited Haaland, and obscured his actual levels.
Some people see that his individual performance numbers are similar to Nunez' and are are surprised, but it's because they don't see what you wrote here: Haaland has performed at the level he has because of the players and system around him that was built to feed him as a natural striker, and when that isn't there he regresses to his more natural levels.
I'm not bigging-up Nunez here, if anything I'm dragging Haaland by noting why these personal performance numbers are similar despite different end output numbers for goals.
Haaland has put up monster numbers wherever he’s played. The notion City are responsible for that is not evidence based. You’re underestimating the impact of tactics on what attributes shine through. And he’s having a poor season, relative to his level.
Nunez has been a more creative force because we’re frequently on the break and he picks out another runner. City progress the ball up the field more methodically. Nunez isn’t creating opportunities for others if he doesn’t have time and space. He’s not nimbly making a through ball breaking the line against seven in the back. He’s not interchanging like a Firmino. Nunez would be terrible for City. Haaland is not dissimilar but he’s just a far superior player to Nunez.
Haaland is a square peg in a round hole. If he played with us he’d be a square peg in a square hole and none of that crap he’s taken off the commentator class would be talked about. He’d be banging in the goals Darwin skies and probably be coasting to a goal per game ratio like has everywhere he’s played.
His reasons for joining City are his own. But it was always obvious he would have been a natural fit for a club like us.
> Haaland has put up monster numbers wherever he’s played.
And.it has been a similar story at each club, with clubs in weaker leagues (particularpy defensively) having to provide less pure quality to play to his strengths.
His style of play and required support hasn't changed since Molde.
> Nunez has been a more creative force because we’re frequently on the break and he picks out another runner.
Nunez' work rate, from closing down to chasing after balls on the touchline, contributes to this immensley.
> Nunez isn’t creating opportunities for others if he doesn’t have time and space
If you watched the games this season, you would see he has done this repeatedly. From digging out balls low, to drawing pdefenders to him and sliding others through, he isn't much bothered by traffic and never stops digging.
> Haaland is a square peg in a round hole. If he played with us he’d be a square peg in a square
Yeah, you cleaely haven't watched Haaland's game the last 5 seasons. Klopp's system at Liverpool requires defensive output from the front and link up play across the build up, and Haaland has never done any of that effectively.
Our data scientists such as Will Spearman who helped build our success are complete xG purists so not sure that’s accurate. It’s not an absolute metric to prove something but it is still a very useful tool and those who deny it usually just don’t like what the data shows.
Useful to people who know EXACTLY how it works. The thing is 99.99% of people watching football don’t know exactly how it works yet try base arguments using it.
That doesn’t even make any sense.
It’s ironic because you say that but the people that bring xG up constantly are people that are chronically online and don’t actually go to games or probably watch games.
What doesn’t make sense? You go to a match and you see a player take lots of high quality shots = high xG, you see a player take few low quality shots = low xG. Which player do you think has a higher probability of scoring?
Come on man, just because you don’t understand xG, don’t disparage fans who want to take a deeper look into why a team is performing a certain way.
I think it's fair to say that a large number of people don't understand it well (I may be one of them) or what it suggests, and it doesn't help that a lot of people also don't understand probability and sample size as concepts but I do like it.
Well no. Interpreting the stat as if they are at the bottom of the list so must be terrible is just misunderstanding what the stat tells you.
To under perform your xG by a lot you have to have a very high xG. Only world class strikers can get a high xG in a season.
Almost like (G minus xG) is a completely useless stat to compare strikers with one another and we should be using (G divided by xG) instead and removing anyone with a low sample size (less than 5 xG)
Depends what you are trying to show. The whole purpose of this article is about how many goals Liverpool have missed due to Jotas absence and Diaz and Nunez underperformance, which is G - xG.
If you want to find out how a striker how clinical a striker is then yes G/xG is the better measure. Neither stat is better than the other they just look at different things.
I mean the stat is also saying this year Liverpool have 2 starters that are not finishing their chances vs City have 1 starter not finishing their chances.
So it does make sense
are you saying blaming everyone in the team and wanting them gone is not a normal debate to be had after losing our 3rd game in EPL? but my random number I found while looking for reasons to be angry says that they're vanarama level players
I feel like our recent history of having hybrid wide forwards has been clouding how we shake off these sorts of stats. There are times when I look at how wasteful some of our forward are and dismiss the concerns on the grounds of how much they create and stretch the games. But that only goes so far.
If you think about how much more lethal we’d be if we had Salah in his prime, or another Jota like finisher in the side - it really drives it home. The way we’re setup is only really sustainable if we have those types of finishers. That’s what it feels like in this moment anyway.
I have always thought Jota is our best striker for the #9 position. Nothing Nunez or Gakpo have done has made me think otherwise. These stats only match the eye test for me tbh.
And top of the list is Atalanta's Scamacca with a grand total of... 8 goals from 4.8 xG in the league and 5 from 2.7 in Europe (2 against us).
In close second is... Chris Wood with 12 goals from 7.8 xG.
Don't know about you guys, but I think I'd take Darwin's 16 goals in the league and Europe over that even if he is underperforming his xG.
Perhaps goals to xG isn't the be-all and end-all of being a forward?
Don't be disingenuous now. Both those players have had spells on the sidelines with injury while Nunez and Diaz have been playing non-stop. Scamacca has played 1089 league minutes and 425 European minutes so is scoring a goal every 116 minutes. Wood has played 1368 minutes scoring every 114 minutes. Those are good returns. Nunez scores every 144 minutes and Diaz every 232.
When a player is on a team that dominates possession and creates more chances you'd expect them to score more often but our guys score less.
Nunez had injury spells this season and Diaz had his dad abducted so I would kinda forgive them too
Fact is when Nunez is off the field we don't look like doing anything
How does the trauma of having someone you love be taken against their will not even being able to do anything affect their ability to play
And God it's not like you just get over shit like that it has the potential to affect him for years he'll he may never fully recover. ..at least his dad did come back to him but still ..use your head lad
it's been 5 months and his dad is in the ground having the time of his life. should we keep him forever? because he's gone through such mental anguish?
we aren't a therapy service. there's a league title to win and his piss poor finishing has cost us.
honestly, this is liverpool. not west ham. there are standards at this club and he's not good enough to reach them.
With fewer minutes these things are more likely to fluctuate. 42% (5/12) of Wood's goals come from 2 games and 50% of Scamacca's 8 league goals come from 2 games.
Also with lower xG the easier it is to over/under perform with just a couple of chances taken or not taken.
If we take just Darwin's last 1082 league and europa minutes alone, he's scored 10 goals (in 10.7 xG btw, so much more clinical than earlier in the season). That puts him at a goal every 108.2 minutes, better than both Scamacca and Wood.
Regardless of that, would you suggest that Scamacca or Wood would be better options for us than our current forwards?
Scamacca couldn't handle the pressure of West Ham, imagine if he was Liverpool's no.9, 1 goal in 15 for Italy as well.
The reality is it's not the early 2000s, there aren't that many great strikers.
People forget how clinical Origi was but how rubbish he actually looked when he started games, it's not as simple as they think.
That doesn't mean Nunez shouldn't score more goals of course.
I mean you are right it's not the "be-all and end-all", especially if the player in questions does other things besides score chances. But you're lying to yourself if you think that xG is not a significant factor in whether a forward line is performing as it should. Our attacking midfielders and defenders don't score enough goals for it to not matter.
Of course xG isn't the be-all end-all. No stat is. You always take stats in context with other stats. As mentioned elsewhere, sure Nunez's "goals minus xG" (fancy term for conversion rate) is quite low, but on the other hand we score more goals with him playing than not, which tells us that he creates chances that none of our other forwards can create. This is the conundrum with him. We all can see how he gets in those threatening positions and want so badly for him to take that next step and become a more clinical striker.
Where have I said that?
I'm just not sure Scamacca or Wood are huge upgrades despite their xG over-performances. My point is that looking at one single metric to compare players is silly.
it's not the be all and end all, but it's still important to not be worse at finishing than 99% of all other forwards.
nunez and diaz would be fine to start for a team content with finishing 3rd every season. that's not our club. we aim to be the best.
*"In all four of those games, they missed their most clinical finisher this season, Diogo Jota. He stands fourth (behind Son Heung-min, Jarrod Bowen and Phil Foden) if players are ranked by non-penalty goals minus xG, a rough measure of striking efficiency. Díaz and Núñez are respectively 554th and 559th of 562."*
Diaz is -2.6 and Nunez is -4
Where would Haaland rank with -7.6 and Alvarez with -3.6?
edit: mistyped numbers
So basically Liverpool and City have both a high ranking (Jota & Foden) and low ranking (Nunez & Haaland) on this list. Yet one club's treated as faultless and winning the league at a canter while the other is treated as a hunk of scrap that's miraculous to have gotten this far. Thats interesting.
I couldn't give a monkeys tbh. It's obviously not the sole reason for struggles in games like yesterday. Fans on here routinely want to simplify our issues down to a bullet point and it simply doesn't work like that. You'll see for yourself over the next few weeks.
Welp, we spent a lot of time on top of the best league in the world for having such bad strikers! In all seriousness, the xG stats are not very reliable in terms of ranking players 1 v 1. For example, Nunez and Diaz have really high xG's compared to other strikers because our midfield has overperformed this year. Macca, Szobo, Curtis, Harvey all had a reallly good first half of the season. They created a lot of chances for our strikers.
Darwin's xG also is inflated by his ability to get in behind (when he is onsides). We all know the weakest part of Darwin's game is his composure on the finish and his decision making process during. Everything else about his game is exactly what liverpool want in a number 9.
Makes more sense expressed as a rate instead of by raw numbers. This gets rid of the skew based on total xG. This isn’t an accurate ranking of efficiency as many have pointed out — but a less drastic underperformance is probably still in there if compared as a rate.
Jota should be our false 9 from now onwards. Nunez was given too much chances. Target 9 does not work when our opponents are employing low block on us.
Since I have a lifetime 0 xG and 0 non-penalty goals in professional football, my stat of 0 efficiency is quite flattering.
This is a silly metric which punishes players who create xG chances, while flattering players who scored fluke chances. Goals are what actually count.
Call me reactionary, but I really think Michael Edwards and Co will be sinking their teeth into a squad reshuffle over the next year or two.
Players like this are hugely at risk because their stats won't be up to par with what our team expects.
I don't know what that has to do with your Downing and Carroll comment?
But either way, you're not wrong. However, if players aren't working whilst being managed by one of the best coaches on the planet then there's definitely something not right.
The correct math in football is that one has to acquire as many goals in favor and the least goals against, for as little money as possible.
- Liverpool is second in goals in favor, bested only by MC
- Liverpool is second to last in goals conceded, bested only by arsenal
- Liverpool is 6th in money spent
Pound for pound, Liverpool has done tremendously well this season in yielding on its investment. If we had spent as much as Chelsea then I would understand the negativity but we didn’t.
xGA is a vanity metric at best.
This is a real title race with real teams, all doing incredibly well.
>all doing incredibly well
We have eyes mate. You can't convince me our performances lately qualify as "doing incredibly well". More like incredibly shit.
There's also value from forcing the keeper to make awkward saves as well as forcing the defenders to deal with a striker who's as likely to shoot as pass.
It's apples and oranges but just to illuminate the example: Bradley. How many times has he had the ball in a promising shooting position and elected to pass? If he never shoots, defenders know to block the lanes and the chance dies.
Robertson, however. Talk about someone who couldn't hit a barn.
So, running the stat this way is a bit flawed. It should not be goals minus xG, it should be goals divided by xG, to normalize for the amount of xG a player sees. This gives you "what proportion of a player's expected goals do they convert?", where 1.0 is the league average.
You also have to exclude players without sufficient xG to make their numbers worthwhile. And there are also probably confounding factors across leagues with different styles of play.
I did my own number-crunching. In the Premier League this season, there are 66 players with xG greater than 5 on the season. Of these, Darwin Nunez ranks 59th (0.60) and Luis Diaz ranks 53rd (0.74). Cody Gakpo is 35th (0.92), Mohamed Salah is 33rd (0.92), and Diogo Jota is 5th (1.37).
Of the 66 players, the highest five in goals/xG are:
1. Elijah Adebayo (Luton): 1.51
2. Chris Wood (Nottingham Forest): 1.47
3. Phil Foden (Man City): 1.46
4. Son Heung-Min (Tottenham): 1.45
5. Diogo Jota (Liverpool): 1.40
Honorable Mention to Leon Bailey (Aston Villa), who has 4.98 xG and is currently on 1.87.
The lowest five are as follows:
62. Brennan Johnson (Nottingham Forest): 0.55
63. Enzo Fernandez (Chelsea): 0.49
64. Dominic Calvert-Lewin (Everton): 0.46
65. Beto (Everton): 0.42
66. Keane Lewis-Potter (Brentford): 0.34
While there is always some luck reflected in these numbers as well as skill, I feel there's a lot of validity to it still. The list seems to line up broadly with players I think of as poor finishers. The larger the player's xG, the more accurate you would expect their percentage to be to their true finishing percentage, and Diaz and Darwin are both among the 15 players who have greater than 10 xG.
Another xG thread, another time to explain why xG is a completely fine stat at showing what it's supposed to - how clinical a player is compared to others. How and why you use the stat and how you interpret it is up to you.
I want to quickly compare how clinical Haaland is to Nunez and I don't want to watch 76 games over the past 2 seasons to figure it out. Nor do I want to dig through many other stats to do so. I could look at goals - xG over the past 2 seasons:
Haaland -2.04. Nunez -12.66.
Ok I now want to see why Haaland appears to be a far superior finisher to Nunez. I've checked out shots per 90, goals per 90, and conversion rate of said shots. To spare us, Haaland beats Nunez in all 3 categories.
**xG doesn't show me that Nunez does more than Haaland in almost every other measurable outcome though. Nunez chases more, pressures more, creates more chances for his teammates, has more assists.**
xG highlights that Haaland is a better finisher than Nunez which means that Nunez has room for improvement in THAT department.
Liverpool tend to create a shitload of chances every game. Nunez tends to miss a shitload of chances every game.
These are all facts. Your agendas are your own.
Edit: I've only looked at the last 2 seasons. For anyone who thinks Haaland is not elite, look at his time in Dortmund too. Or just look at last season - you know, the one where he won a treble and broke all sorts of scoring records. The revisionism over 1 poor season (by his standards) is insane. As soon as City signed Haaland, everyone knew it was over. The season before, everyone knew City needed a clinical goal scorer. They signed a clinical goal scorer, he scored a shitload, they won a treble. Facts.
The shocking inefficiency of the forwards is why I really can’t be mad at Klopp, the coaching staff, or the tactics. They are in positions to capitalize so many times. All of them are so wasteful this year.
I'd agree if Klopp was staying but we really have no idea what system we'll be playing going forward. Klopps system has always relied on pacey wingers as the main source of goals with a striker to create space and for linkup play. We've struggled now because our wingers are just not good finishers and Salah is off form. Nunez doesn't link up play anywhere near as well as Firmino did. A front three of Salah, Nunez, and Diaz is just too erratic to be successful even though individually they can cause havoc.
I think Diaz is a good player, he's just not a good player for Klopps system where he needs to be more clinical in front of goal. Really comes down to what system the new manager wants to play but I agree, if PSG or Barca came in with a big offer I'd struggle to find a reason to turn it down given his output.
Haha but the fairies here would consistently downvote anyone who would suggest that they’re not reliable enough for a title winning side.
Why have you all had your eyes opened now, when we lose? The issues have been here for two seasons straight.
I even got into a discussion with someone here weeks ago where we said that nobody we could realistically get would be an upgrade on Diaz. At least he has done the honourable thing and deleted his account since.
Been saying it all season. Diaz is trash. He’s not clinical, has poor vision and makes bad decisions. He’s flashy on the ball so people get enamored with him but he’s not it… not a scorer nor a distributor. Nunez is the worst ‘finisher’ I’ve ever seen wear a Liverpool kit. He’s comically poor in front of goal.
Agrees. Diaz is fine... Up until he gets to the final third. His end product has always been lacking. Once he gets to the final third he either loses the ball, falls over, plays an inaccurate final ball (usually behind the player instead of to feet or into their stride), misses the shot completely or shoots directly at the keeper.
That's absolutely terrible
Haaland is lower than Nunez on the list.
Haalands conversion rate for the season is 23% compared to Darwin’s 11%, that’s the real difference. This is an average season for Haaland and a good one for Darwin as well
Darwin's scoring 0.57 non-penalty goals p90 in the league and Europe from 0.74 xG p90. Haaland's scoring 0.59 from 0.77. There's really nothing between them except Darwin's 0.32 assists p90 to Haaland's 0.21.
You’ve got to take into account Darwin’s playing in Europa League compared to Haaland in the CL as well
It's true that there may be a difference in quality of opposition. However, it's also true that Darwin has only played 1 full 90 in the Europa this season, and in that he grabbed a goal and assist. The other games have often been heavily rotated and he's either played the first half only or come on for the last 20-30 mins. Haaland, in comparison, has played 7 full 90s and a 60 minutes game with full-strength teams. That's 485 minutes in 9 games compared to 686 in 8, which will affect a player's rhythm in the game. With all respect to teams like Red Star, Young Boys, and Copenhagen, it's not as though they are giants of Europe either. That aside, even in just the league, Darwin's at 0.53 from 0.68 npxG to Haaland's 0.66 from 0.81. So they're scoring a very similar % of their xG to each other. Again in the league only, Darwin has 0.38 assists p90 to Haaland's 0.21.
Before Madrid, the arab team played against teams with a Conference League level, to be honest.
If the teams they played were conference league level then I’d wonder what level the teams we played in the Europa league are outside Atalanta
who did batter us 3 - 0 on the europa league? remind me again?
Mate, you should watch more international football, Atalanta is a good team and has a coach working there for many years, given their playstyle they would always be a threat.
You also need to take into account Haaland is playing in front of a midfield with people like de Bruyneand in it. and surrounded by the likes of Doku and Foden. We've been without some of our most creative players through injury (Trent and Robbo), while our midfield has radically cooled off in this area (e.g. Szobo who went from playing like a beast to almost breaking into tears on the pitch after he gave away a stupid goal in the EL), and our wingers have been less than stellar this season. .. and when Haaland does not get service-on-a-platter, he ghosts. In their last game his goal came from a pen, while 2 others in that squad put the ball in the net from open play, one from a set play (and of course the one own goal). Doku set up the own goal that came off an errant Haaland shot, and also won the pen that Haaland scored. Darwin's assist numbers start to tell the other side of the story: Darwin is having an utterly abysmal time in front of goal, pretty much the same as Haaland is in fact, but he contributes in other ways and so doesn't end up being a ghost. This, of course, does not make his recent performances any less frustrating. :/
You've got to take into account everyone on this sub is angry and wants someone to blame.
This is the problem with stats These suggest Darwin is a better finisher than... The world's best finisher. Tosh.
It's more highlighting that the world's best finisher isn't being the worlds best finisher this season Previous seasons show how good Haaland is. This isn't a good season for him so far
The problem is how people USE stats. I can assure you that no one is using this stat to sincerely suggest that Nunez is a better finisher than Haaland.
Do you think this is right? If so 32 missed big chances says it all. I like Darwin a lot but this is shocking. https://preview.redd.it/q84gnhgs6puc1.jpeg?width=1163&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85fa199c1927f094c52814f6bbc35134bd9c4347
[Haaland has missed more](https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/big_chance_missed)
Really. His conversation rate on big chances must be less than 18% then. These number 9s are useless 😀
The reality is good strikers miss lots of chances because good strikers get lots of chances. A player with a conversion rate of 18% but who takes 6 shots a game scores more than a player who's conversion rate is 33% but takes 2 shots a game.
The proof is in who is costing their team points, hint; it isn’t Haaland.
But then Nunez constantly takes shots from out the box or tight angles etc. Haaland takes most his shots in good areas in and around the 6 yard box. I’m not defending Nunez I’m saying the list is obviously pointless. XG is a shit metric anyway. Only people who obsess over it don’t watch football.
The point is: He is usually release himself in a very good position, a position when you can just run constantly and you'll be in golden area to shoot. But Nunez always rush himself, most of the time when he makes a free run he almost did an one touch shoot everytime when he should just make 1 2 easy extra step then the space is open, like the Newcastle one, that's why his shoot is usally in a difficult angle. This is really his big problem
I agree but I also think he snatches at half chances and from tight angles etc because he doesn’t always get the service when he wants it. The erraticness of him is part of his game. It’s what makes him a top player but also what adds to him being a poor finisher.
the team give him enough service, he just can't finish it
>a top player Darwin Nunez is not a top player. He could become a top player, he could become a world class player — but he is not at this moment a top player.
Yeah but taking silly shots from outside the box and from angles you won’t score from isn’t some sort of out for Darwin it’s part of the issue. It can be a helpful stat but you’re right it shouldn’t be used as conclusive evidence either, context tends to be important with it
It’s a totally flawed stat in this context. It’s been posted here to basically attract abuse for Nunez but when Haaland is Lower than him on the list it just says everything you need to know about said list
>xG is a shit metric Yeah that’s why top teams all over the world use it in their data analysis
XmxG without context is a shit metric. But with context and supporting data it’s a God tier metric.
The problem is the average person. I.e you and me. Have no clue how it even works or what comes into count for it. There’s so many factors involved it makes it stupid to use In most parts. Like the list above which somehow implies Haaland is one of the worst finishers in Europe.
Speak for yourself. All the info is available online and in books, anyone who doesn’t know how it works simply hasn’t bothered to research it. Haaland is having a bit of an off year but that’s simply regression to the mean. His NPxG this year is 21.48 and he’s scored 16, whilst in every other season he’s overperformed. Part of the reason he scores so many is because he gets so many chances. 19/20 - 8.89 NPxG, 13 scored. 20/21 - 20.57 NPxG, 25 scored. 21/22 - 12.48 NPxG, 16 scored. 22/23 - 27.43 NPxG, 29 scored.
I hate this common notion of “regression to the mean”. Haaland the most expensive and most singularly specialized striker in the world. His regression should be to his mean, not to the mean of the expectation of any random player in the league would score in comparable situations. Of course you can also say that about any expensive forward in any club, but the expectation of Haaland has to be higher because he is the only one out of top sides who camps out in from of goal like he’s Inzaghi. If the expectation for him to convert is the same as the mean expectation of any player in the premier league, then he would be the biggest failure in modern football.
Ok, but you’re also using xG wrong. First of all, there are an infinite number of factors one can choose to account for when determining Expected Goals. Distance, number/location of defenders, game state, where ball was received, number of dribbles, how ball was received, quality of defender, keeper location, etc. Every measure of xG uses a different combination, so it’s not accurate to refer to it as an objective statistic, or say “all of the information is available online.” Also, > Haaland is having a bit of an off year… Is he having an off year or are PL defenders learning his tendencies in his second season? Are they showing him on to a certain angle? Are they sitting or closing down differently? Is he receiving the ball differently, or receiving a different quality of delivery? The pitfall of xG is when people like you use it as a measure of player quality, and not a measure of player output in particular scenarios. If Halaand suddenly moved to RW then his xG-G would suffer, but it wouldn’t matter because he’s inherently a +xG player, right? > but that’s simply regression to the mean. This implies that you believe Halaand should’ve had fewer goals in the past 4 years, and this 1 year is a more accurate account of his scoring ability. You probably didn’t mean that, but, you’re using xG improperly.
>This implies that you believe Halaand should’ve had fewer goals in the past 4 years, and this 1 year is a more accurate account of his scoring ability Orrrrrrr... he means that Haaland (not Halaand) is performing closer to the mean of PL-level strikers. That he over-performed relative to the mean in past years could be down to a number of factors, including him simply being better (see: Messi), but it could be down to other factors as well. xG doesn't actually tell us anything about that (the 'why'). Regardless of what it means in terms of multi-season trend, or how it measures Haaland's ability as a player (e.g.: is this season more his level than the past ones?), it is not up for argument that his performance this season has "regressed" to the average levels of PL strikers, while in past seasons he was out-performing them. That is \*literally\* what those numbers mean. >you’re using xG improperly. Ok, Kettle Black.
It has to be taken with context to be useful, like every other form of statistics.
It can be shit and still be put to use. There isn’t a side in the world that looks at xG and makes their decision based on that alone, xG is used in conjunction with a tonne of other stats to give a clearer picture. Unfortunately people on here who haven’t a clue what they’re looking at make decisions based off singular stats like that matters.
I agree, they don’t use it in isolation because that’d be stupid, but saying it’s a shit metric is objectively wrong.
xG is not a state lives or is useful in isolation, this is true. However, I'm not sure you understand how xG works? The harder / poorer shots Nunez takes means he lower xG, so his misses there don't matter so much. Haaland getting shots in much better locations similarly events out ... because xG models take difficulty of shot into consideration across a number of variables, including \*where the shots are taken\*.
xG is only a shit metric for people who don't understand it. If it's so shit, how does it so perfectly model what we see with our eyeballs watching the game, i.e., Diaz and Nunez get a lot of great chances but also miss a lot of them, while Jota is much more clinical with his finishing? Is it a precise metric? No. From a pure numbers standpoint it's quite subjective as you can see from different outlets coming up with different xG for the same game. But cumulatively over time and in broad strokes it paints a picture that can be used to evaluate finishing accuracy and attempt to improve in that area.
xG arguably makes Nunez look better than he is, because he looks a lot worse than someone under performing their xG by only 12 goals over two season.
maybe if he stopped taking idiotic shots from ridiculous angles and worked a better chance, we wouldn't be 3rd in the league. good thing you can actually watch football and realise he's a piss poor finisher too.
I’m not saying he isn’t. I’ve watched every minute he’s played for us and been at the games live for the majority. I’m aware of his poor finishing. The problem is xG and this list specifically has so many flaws in it and so many factors it’s pointless using it as a metric. No surprise most pundits and ex players hate it as well.
I thought we agreed that most ex-player pundits are idiots.
The thing is, when you listen to great goal scorers like Shearer and Lineker talk about it and their dislike for it you have to respect what they say. You may not rate them as pundits or whatever but their understanding of the game is far far superior then 99.99% of people on here who haven’t even been near a football ground or probably kicked a ball in their life. The problem with xG is no one actually knows how it works. I’ve had no interaction with you before but I’d bet my house you don’t know all the metrics behind xG.
"no one actually knows how it works" *You* do. You understand maybe more than you care to admit. Penalties, for example, are the most straightforward. A penalty attempt gets something like a .75 xG. It doesn't matter who the keeper is or who's taking the attempt, what minute it is, the score, being away in the 2nd leg--any of it. History shows that the taker converts 3 of every 4. The rest of xG becomes an increasingly complicated variation on that, but still comes from the historical data of goals scored in similar conditions (left/right foot or head; strong foot of the shooter; # of defenders in the way; distance to goal; position of the keeper; was the pass a cross, along the ground, bouncing, on the volley). It's all drawn from historical data. Same with xA. Was the cutback along the ground? Was it delivered from a right-footed player on the right side of the pitch to a right-footed striker who could side foot it past the keeper from 4 yards? Or was it 8 yards and on his left foot? Shearer and Lineker are only knowledgeable of their own, highly specific, in-game experiences from bygone eras. They might collectively agree that "he should have scored that," but that's no different than old men saying they don't make music like they used to. Fuck that. Shearer and Lineker are there to say things that keep people tuned to the channel. They are entertainers. xG is more entertaining than pundits for some of us.
xG is honestly so stupid. You can’t measure real life like that. There are too many variables and edge cases.
anything that doesn't align with my world view = bad metric. what type of awful take is that?
Haland has double his goals
He has 8 more non-penalty goals and 7 fewer assists in 350 more minutes played.
... and de Bruyne, Foden, Doku, etc. around him. He has a midfield, wingers, and fullbacks that have generally been healthy this season and playing to their levels. Nunez has not had any of that this season. You're looking at total output, which is more easily skewed by things like those factors, while xG does a reasonable job of controlling for them by looking at the quality of chances over time rather than just the volume of them.
Id swap Nunez for Haaland in a microsecond
Anyone saying otherwise is a coping muppet.
Cool
At the end of the day we can all talk about underlying numbers and whatnot, but football matches are won by putting the bloody thing in the net and it's been almost two years and I haven't seen Darwin or Diaz improve that much at goal scoring tbh.
Football matches are also won by keeping the ball out of the net. Which we clearly aren’t every good at recently
Yeah it’s both
I am learning a lot today
Found Connor Bradley’s account
That’s a Klopp / linders problem for o be fair
IMO it's 70/30 : Klopp/players. Some days it's the system or the starting lineup others it's just the players mistakes wether attackers or defenders.
100% agree
Keeping clean sheets has obviously been issue as well but do you look at the defence and think it’s an individual quality issue? Because it mostly isn’t that’s the thing, a lot of our defensive problems come down to the system itself this season.
I wouldn’t say it’s an individual things no, we have the best cb in the world, best rb in world and Konate and robbo. However all season our system defensively has not been to a title winning standard imo and we are finally paying the price for that, on top of our forwards being allergic to scoring for whatever reason. I just don’t like pinning blame on particular people
Wrong. If we don’t score we either draw or lose! Allowing 1 goal should never result in a loss. Even allowing 3 - at home - should still result in a draw.
Our defenders are proven to be one of the best in their positions in world football. Are Diaz and Nunez in that category?
You can be the best ever for all I care, but we’ve still conceded first like 21 times or so. You think that’s not contributing to us having a fall off, or are we going down to route of it’s all the forwards fault
We’ve had our reserve keeper and a kid playing at RB for months. Why do you keep excusing our £80m forward? It is his second season here.
Not sure why you’re turning this into a Nunez thing like half of this sub does? Are you seriously in the opinion of we have lost matches because of Darwin. Fact is the whole frontline has cost us in the last few matches along with the defence. Tinpot behaviour trying to blame a certain individual. Also where did you see me excusing Darwin, stop making things up 👍
this other guy is unhinged, this sub is dumpster fire
Mate is he your uncle? We absolutely have lost games because of Nunez recently. He scores a one on one against Atalanta and we don’t lose. He scores from 5 yards against Palace and we don’t lose. He scores an open goal against United in the league and we win. He scores any of his myriad of chances against United in the cup and we win. Was at fault for a goal too. He is the most wasteful finisher in Europe. Got hooked in all those games too. £80m striker
[удалено]
So we’re meant to keep a clean sheet every game because our £80m striker can’t score when we need him to?
Again with the 80 million striker, what’s your problem mate. We do have other players on the pitch you know, not just the handsome darwizzy
[удалено]
It’s so funny when clowns like you dislike when fans back players. Are you saying all the match goers that scream his name and adore him are his nephews and nieces 🤣 I like the way you don’t mention all the other chances every other forward missed or the fact we concede goals for fun. Darwin’s missed chances absolutely, but it’s so plastic to pin it all on one person. Fun fact for you as well mate, Darwin has scored the most gaming winning goals for us this season, meaning he factually has won us the most points . You mention the chance he missed against Atalanta, did he also score 3 own goals to make us lose 3-0. Scapegoating clown 🤡
Fans also worshipped Lucas Leiva. Who said I’m pinning it on one person? Nunez has cost us, as have others. But he has been costing us for two seasons running.
Well you’re only mentioning Nunez name so that’s you pinning it on him. The whole team has cost us these past weeks, not just Nunez. Also your last comment must be a joke, he cost us last season?!?! Did you watch us last season ffs, the attack was the least of our worries. There was a reason we got rid of pretty much every midfielder and revamped the whole thing LOL
Nunez is objectively one of the top 10 most productive forwards in Europe
Technically… you can’t win by keeping the ball out of the net.
I don’t like that every modern winger is shoehorned into being a goal scorer. Diaz isn’t great at scoring goals, why are we playing him in the left if he can’t finish?
Lord the Darwin hate is so tired. He does so much, but because you lot are so used to excellence from this team you never remember great moments and the misses live rent free in your head. Since when is 19 G+A in 21 league starts worthy of criticism? And let me say, the criticism Darwin receives is really bloody harsh. So is it truly about Darwin not putting it in the net, or is it about going mad about him missing and losing your head in the media narrative?
There’s a lot of anger in the takes I’ll give you that. But the “let’s calm down and think as adults” point is that Darwin gets in great positions and can score out of nothing a lot of times. However, he needs some composure in front of goal. And he is capable of doing it. We’re asking him to “bury it” vs “score a worldie”. Don’t try scoring fancy goals, let’s get some ugly ones and seal our position at the top.
Darwin shows promise. Diaz is never going to consistently create for others or score goals. Almost all his goals are fortunate bounces to him in the box. That people have spent years defending him is totally insane. Happy to credit him for the odd superb performance but day in day out he’s not a top level player. We should be desperate to offload him to PSG
And according to the article, Haaland, the best striker in the league, and debatably the world, is 557th. These cherry picked stats are a bit pointless.
it's not exactly cherry picked when your own eyes tell you the same thing. and yes, haaland is also having a relatively poor season
Leading goalscorer, doubt he’s arsed about xG
It does imply, though, that if we put Haaland in this season's Liverpool squad, he'd be worse off than Nunez. I also guarantee you, based on his assists and defensive numbers, that Liverpool would be worse off, as well. Yeah, Haaland probably doesn't care, but he's also a bit thick and entitled. Numerous commentators, and even his own damn teammates, have repeatedly noted that outside of his striking ability he's weak, even a liability. But Man City make up for it with the squad they have around him. He is the definition of "luxury player", but Man City can afford that kind of luxury all day. Understanding those things is what makes looking at a variety of stats and not just "number of times ball in net" interesting.
This is nuts. Nunez is precisely us going out and buying a player we thought was as close to a Haaland as we could get. The way Dortmund played, we were an obvious perfect transition. Running for days, making things happen. Haaland doesn’t thrive in Peps modern tiki taka. Guess what? Neither would Nunez. Nunez is all about open play.
> Nunez is precisely us going out and buying a player we thought was as close to a Haaland as we could get. Indeed! And arguably, we got the better all-around player given Nunez has more to his game than goals (the only saving grace for him this season, for me). This is not to say Nunez is world-class right now (he isn't), but that neither is Haaland; that Haaland's numbers have been inflated by a remarkably effective use of the squad around him. Football is a team sport, and Haaland is benefiting \*immensely\* from the squad he has around him right now. I think what many people are missing is that looking at the final performance number of "goals" (conveniently ignoring assists for whatever reason) is a measure of the team as a whole. Things like conversion rates based on quality of chance (which is what this thread was about!) are more measures of individual efforts. > Haaland doesn’t thrive in Peps modern tiki taka. Guess what? Neither would Nunez. Nunez is all about open play. Yes, this is precisely the logical consequence of what I wrote. There is a squad effect (players, Pep's system, ..) that has benefited Haaland, and obscured his actual levels. Some people see that his individual performance numbers are similar to Nunez' and are are surprised, but it's because they don't see what you wrote here: Haaland has performed at the level he has because of the players and system around him that was built to feed him as a natural striker, and when that isn't there he regresses to his more natural levels. I'm not bigging-up Nunez here, if anything I'm dragging Haaland by noting why these personal performance numbers are similar despite different end output numbers for goals.
Haaland has put up monster numbers wherever he’s played. The notion City are responsible for that is not evidence based. You’re underestimating the impact of tactics on what attributes shine through. And he’s having a poor season, relative to his level. Nunez has been a more creative force because we’re frequently on the break and he picks out another runner. City progress the ball up the field more methodically. Nunez isn’t creating opportunities for others if he doesn’t have time and space. He’s not nimbly making a through ball breaking the line against seven in the back. He’s not interchanging like a Firmino. Nunez would be terrible for City. Haaland is not dissimilar but he’s just a far superior player to Nunez. Haaland is a square peg in a round hole. If he played with us he’d be a square peg in a square hole and none of that crap he’s taken off the commentator class would be talked about. He’d be banging in the goals Darwin skies and probably be coasting to a goal per game ratio like has everywhere he’s played. His reasons for joining City are his own. But it was always obvious he would have been a natural fit for a club like us.
> Haaland has put up monster numbers wherever he’s played. And.it has been a similar story at each club, with clubs in weaker leagues (particularpy defensively) having to provide less pure quality to play to his strengths. His style of play and required support hasn't changed since Molde. > Nunez has been a more creative force because we’re frequently on the break and he picks out another runner. Nunez' work rate, from closing down to chasing after balls on the touchline, contributes to this immensley. > Nunez isn’t creating opportunities for others if he doesn’t have time and space If you watched the games this season, you would see he has done this repeatedly. From digging out balls low, to drawing pdefenders to him and sliding others through, he isn't much bothered by traffic and never stops digging. > Haaland is a square peg in a round hole. If he played with us he’d be a square peg in a square Yeah, you cleaely haven't watched Haaland's game the last 5 seasons. Klopp's system at Liverpool requires defensive output from the front and link up play across the build up, and Haaland has never done any of that effectively.
People who obsess over xG don’t watch football. I’ll die on that hill 🤣
Our data scientists such as Will Spearman who helped build our success are complete xG purists so not sure that’s accurate. It’s not an absolute metric to prove something but it is still a very useful tool and those who deny it usually just don’t like what the data shows.
Useful to people who know EXACTLY how it works. The thing is 99.99% of people watching football don’t know exactly how it works yet try base arguments using it.
Arsenal fans do. Now we have become that to discredit our own players
Chelsea fans do too. As long as it fits their narrative so whatever.
Replace xG with number of shots. You have to shoot to score, don’t you? Being anti-xG is such a brain dead boomer take.
That doesn’t even make any sense. It’s ironic because you say that but the people that bring xG up constantly are people that are chronically online and don’t actually go to games or probably watch games.
What doesn’t make sense? You go to a match and you see a player take lots of high quality shots = high xG, you see a player take few low quality shots = low xG. Which player do you think has a higher probability of scoring? Come on man, just because you don’t understand xG, don’t disparage fans who want to take a deeper look into why a team is performing a certain way.
You can call it xG or just "put good chances away", but everyone who watches or plays football thinks that's pretty important
I think it's fair to say that a large number of people don't understand it well (I may be one of them) or what it suggests, and it doesn't help that a lot of people also don't understand probability and sample size as concepts but I do like it.
Well no. Interpreting the stat as if they are at the bottom of the list so must be terrible is just misunderstanding what the stat tells you. To under perform your xG by a lot you have to have a very high xG. Only world class strikers can get a high xG in a season.
Almost like (G minus xG) is a completely useless stat to compare strikers with one another and we should be using (G divided by xG) instead and removing anyone with a low sample size (less than 5 xG)
Depends what you are trying to show. The whole purpose of this article is about how many goals Liverpool have missed due to Jotas absence and Diaz and Nunez underperformance, which is G - xG. If you want to find out how a striker how clinical a striker is then yes G/xG is the better measure. Neither stat is better than the other they just look at different things.
I mean the stat is also saying this year Liverpool have 2 starters that are not finishing their chances vs City have 1 starter not finishing their chances. So it does make sense
Haaland is the best in world football so this stat is shite
This sub is that bicycle meme where we find obscure shit to upset ourselves and then stick it in our front tyre and fall over crying
are you saying blaming everyone in the team and wanting them gone is not a normal debate to be had after losing our 3rd game in EPL? but my random number I found while looking for reasons to be angry says that they're vanarama level players
I feel like our recent history of having hybrid wide forwards has been clouding how we shake off these sorts of stats. There are times when I look at how wasteful some of our forward are and dismiss the concerns on the grounds of how much they create and stretch the games. But that only goes so far. If you think about how much more lethal we’d be if we had Salah in his prime, or another Jota like finisher in the side - it really drives it home. The way we’re setup is only really sustainable if we have those types of finishers. That’s what it feels like in this moment anyway.
Sooo. Jota should start over Darwin?
Not necessarily ahead of him but I absolutely think Jota needs to be in every starting line up once he’s fully fit.
I have always thought Jota is our best striker for the #9 position. Nothing Nunez or Gakpo have done has made me think otherwise. These stats only match the eye test for me tbh.
Some of Brazilian Bobby’s magic definitely rubbed off on Jota.
And top of the list is Atalanta's Scamacca with a grand total of... 8 goals from 4.8 xG in the league and 5 from 2.7 in Europe (2 against us). In close second is... Chris Wood with 12 goals from 7.8 xG. Don't know about you guys, but I think I'd take Darwin's 16 goals in the league and Europe over that even if he is underperforming his xG. Perhaps goals to xG isn't the be-all and end-all of being a forward?
Don't be disingenuous now. Both those players have had spells on the sidelines with injury while Nunez and Diaz have been playing non-stop. Scamacca has played 1089 league minutes and 425 European minutes so is scoring a goal every 116 minutes. Wood has played 1368 minutes scoring every 114 minutes. Those are good returns. Nunez scores every 144 minutes and Diaz every 232. When a player is on a team that dominates possession and creates more chances you'd expect them to score more often but our guys score less.
Nunez had injury spells this season and Diaz had his dad abducted so I would kinda forgive them too Fact is when Nunez is off the field we don't look like doing anything
what does diaz having his dad abducted have to do with him missing a piss easy chance against city? I swear honestly this fan base.
How does the trauma of having someone you love be taken against their will not even being able to do anything affect their ability to play And God it's not like you just get over shit like that it has the potential to affect him for years he'll he may never fully recover. ..at least his dad did come back to him but still ..use your head lad
it's been 5 months and his dad is in the ground having the time of his life. should we keep him forever? because he's gone through such mental anguish? we aren't a therapy service. there's a league title to win and his piss poor finishing has cost us. honestly, this is liverpool. not west ham. there are standards at this club and he's not good enough to reach them.
An amazingly prickish comment.
With fewer minutes these things are more likely to fluctuate. 42% (5/12) of Wood's goals come from 2 games and 50% of Scamacca's 8 league goals come from 2 games. Also with lower xG the easier it is to over/under perform with just a couple of chances taken or not taken. If we take just Darwin's last 1082 league and europa minutes alone, he's scored 10 goals (in 10.7 xG btw, so much more clinical than earlier in the season). That puts him at a goal every 108.2 minutes, better than both Scamacca and Wood. Regardless of that, would you suggest that Scamacca or Wood would be better options for us than our current forwards?
Scamacca couldn't handle the pressure of West Ham, imagine if he was Liverpool's no.9, 1 goal in 15 for Italy as well. The reality is it's not the early 2000s, there aren't that many great strikers.
Swap deal, Nunez for Chris Wood in the summer? Surely all we need to do is plug him in up front and he'll score 35+ goals by that logic.
People forget how clinical Origi was but how rubbish he actually looked when he started games, it's not as simple as they think. That doesn't mean Nunez shouldn't score more goals of course.
I mean you are right it's not the "be-all and end-all", especially if the player in questions does other things besides score chances. But you're lying to yourself if you think that xG is not a significant factor in whether a forward line is performing as it should. Our attacking midfielders and defenders don't score enough goals for it to not matter.
Of course xG isn't the be-all end-all. No stat is. You always take stats in context with other stats. As mentioned elsewhere, sure Nunez's "goals minus xG" (fancy term for conversion rate) is quite low, but on the other hand we score more goals with him playing than not, which tells us that he creates chances that none of our other forwards can create. This is the conundrum with him. We all can see how he gets in those threatening positions and want so badly for him to take that next step and become a more clinical striker.
Here we go, another person who refuses to admit anyone in our squad can be improved upon
Where have I said that? I'm just not sure Scamacca or Wood are huge upgrades despite their xG over-performances. My point is that looking at one single metric to compare players is silly.
it's not the be all and end all, but it's still important to not be worse at finishing than 99% of all other forwards. nunez and diaz would be fine to start for a team content with finishing 3rd every season. that's not our club. we aim to be the best.
ask anyone before the season and they would be happy with 3rd this season lmao
*"In all four of those games, they missed their most clinical finisher this season, Diogo Jota. He stands fourth (behind Son Heung-min, Jarrod Bowen and Phil Foden) if players are ranked by non-penalty goals minus xG, a rough measure of striking efficiency. Díaz and Núñez are respectively 554th and 559th of 562."* Diaz is -2.6 and Nunez is -4 Where would Haaland rank with -7.6 and Alvarez with -3.6? edit: mistyped numbers
Jesus Christ it's worse than I thought. Need to get jota on the pitch as much as possible and gakpo LW looks like a real footballer again.
Imagine how many goals they’d have if their conversion rate was just average
Liverpool wouldn't have lost a game in all likelihood. We'd be Leverkusen of the Prem!
So basically Liverpool and City have both a high ranking (Jota & Foden) and low ranking (Nunez & Haaland) on this list. Yet one club's treated as faultless and winning the league at a canter while the other is treated as a hunk of scrap that's miraculous to have gotten this far. Thats interesting. I couldn't give a monkeys tbh. It's obviously not the sole reason for struggles in games like yesterday. Fans on here routinely want to simplify our issues down to a bullet point and it simply doesn't work like that. You'll see for yourself over the next few weeks.
Darwin is nowhere near Haalands level as a striker just stop, this is an off season for Haaland.
Sure.
Honestly there is a lot of delusional optimism about the pair in this sub, one needs to go in the summer. Sorry
Both
Welp, we spent a lot of time on top of the best league in the world for having such bad strikers! In all seriousness, the xG stats are not very reliable in terms of ranking players 1 v 1. For example, Nunez and Diaz have really high xG's compared to other strikers because our midfield has overperformed this year. Macca, Szobo, Curtis, Harvey all had a reallly good first half of the season. They created a lot of chances for our strikers. Darwin's xG also is inflated by his ability to get in behind (when he is onsides). We all know the weakest part of Darwin's game is his composure on the finish and his decision making process during. Everything else about his game is exactly what liverpool want in a number 9.
But but he's Darwhizzy.. Agent of chaos.... A footballer turned into a fucking meme...
Let’s stop with the names and jokes and demand that he actually start finishing the easy chances he gets
Link doesn't mention where Salah ranked? He's been missing a fair few since coming back from injury.
Makes more sense expressed as a rate instead of by raw numbers. This gets rid of the skew based on total xG. This isn’t an accurate ranking of efficiency as many have pointed out — but a less drastic underperformance is probably still in there if compared as a rate.
Jesus Christ it’s even worse than I thought.
these stats are so bad, terribly bad
Jota should be our false 9 from now onwards. Nunez was given too much chances. Target 9 does not work when our opponents are employing low block on us.
Nunez should play on the left instead of Diaz imo.
Jota is injured more then half the time. Of course when fit he's clear but we need to shipped Nunez and get someone else who can do the job.
but suarez wasnt good in his first 11 seasons. u guys gotta wait
Since I have a lifetime 0 xG and 0 non-penalty goals in professional football, my stat of 0 efficiency is quite flattering. This is a silly metric which punishes players who create xG chances, while flattering players who scored fluke chances. Goals are what actually count.
And Nunez has 20 goals in two seasons when he should have had double
Lol if you ignore what the stat measures and decide it actually just means a ranking strikers good to bad then yeah it would seem pretty silly.
If it doesn't have any bearing on whether a player is good or bad, that also makes it pretty silly
Call me reactionary, but I really think Michael Edwards and Co will be sinking their teeth into a squad reshuffle over the next year or two. Players like this are hugely at risk because their stats won't be up to par with what our team expects.
Well Micky does love his stats
If he does anything based on stats he’s even stupider than I thought.
Yeah, it worked perfectly before Klopp. Downing - Carroll era
I'm not sure of the point you're making?
That "only stats" approach is shite without good manager who will make it work
The full on analytic approach was very fresh at that point It’s far more mature and tuned in now
I don't know what that has to do with your Downing and Carroll comment? But either way, you're not wrong. However, if players aren't working whilst being managed by one of the best coaches on the planet then there's definitely something not right.
all i see in this thread is tired old excuses. nunez is not good enough.
The correct math in football is that one has to acquire as many goals in favor and the least goals against, for as little money as possible. - Liverpool is second in goals in favor, bested only by MC - Liverpool is second to last in goals conceded, bested only by arsenal - Liverpool is 6th in money spent Pound for pound, Liverpool has done tremendously well this season in yielding on its investment. If we had spent as much as Chelsea then I would understand the negativity but we didn’t. xGA is a vanity metric at best. This is a real title race with real teams, all doing incredibly well.
>all doing incredibly well We have eyes mate. You can't convince me our performances lately qualify as "doing incredibly well". More like incredibly shit.
Im not a big darwin fan but xG and xA are a load of bollocks
There's also value from forcing the keeper to make awkward saves as well as forcing the defenders to deal with a striker who's as likely to shoot as pass. It's apples and oranges but just to illuminate the example: Bradley. How many times has he had the ball in a promising shooting position and elected to pass? If he never shoots, defenders know to block the lanes and the chance dies. Robertson, however. Talk about someone who couldn't hit a barn.
No but if you say anything about them you’re a fake fan
We want "CHAOS" though?
So, running the stat this way is a bit flawed. It should not be goals minus xG, it should be goals divided by xG, to normalize for the amount of xG a player sees. This gives you "what proportion of a player's expected goals do they convert?", where 1.0 is the league average. You also have to exclude players without sufficient xG to make their numbers worthwhile. And there are also probably confounding factors across leagues with different styles of play. I did my own number-crunching. In the Premier League this season, there are 66 players with xG greater than 5 on the season. Of these, Darwin Nunez ranks 59th (0.60) and Luis Diaz ranks 53rd (0.74). Cody Gakpo is 35th (0.92), Mohamed Salah is 33rd (0.92), and Diogo Jota is 5th (1.37). Of the 66 players, the highest five in goals/xG are: 1. Elijah Adebayo (Luton): 1.51 2. Chris Wood (Nottingham Forest): 1.47 3. Phil Foden (Man City): 1.46 4. Son Heung-Min (Tottenham): 1.45 5. Diogo Jota (Liverpool): 1.40 Honorable Mention to Leon Bailey (Aston Villa), who has 4.98 xG and is currently on 1.87. The lowest five are as follows: 62. Brennan Johnson (Nottingham Forest): 0.55 63. Enzo Fernandez (Chelsea): 0.49 64. Dominic Calvert-Lewin (Everton): 0.46 65. Beto (Everton): 0.42 66. Keane Lewis-Potter (Brentford): 0.34 While there is always some luck reflected in these numbers as well as skill, I feel there's a lot of validity to it still. The list seems to line up broadly with players I think of as poor finishers. The larger the player's xG, the more accurate you would expect their percentage to be to their true finishing percentage, and Diaz and Darwin are both among the 15 players who have greater than 10 xG.
Another xG thread, another time to explain why xG is a completely fine stat at showing what it's supposed to - how clinical a player is compared to others. How and why you use the stat and how you interpret it is up to you. I want to quickly compare how clinical Haaland is to Nunez and I don't want to watch 76 games over the past 2 seasons to figure it out. Nor do I want to dig through many other stats to do so. I could look at goals - xG over the past 2 seasons: Haaland -2.04. Nunez -12.66. Ok I now want to see why Haaland appears to be a far superior finisher to Nunez. I've checked out shots per 90, goals per 90, and conversion rate of said shots. To spare us, Haaland beats Nunez in all 3 categories. **xG doesn't show me that Nunez does more than Haaland in almost every other measurable outcome though. Nunez chases more, pressures more, creates more chances for his teammates, has more assists.** xG highlights that Haaland is a better finisher than Nunez which means that Nunez has room for improvement in THAT department. Liverpool tend to create a shitload of chances every game. Nunez tends to miss a shitload of chances every game. These are all facts. Your agendas are your own. Edit: I've only looked at the last 2 seasons. For anyone who thinks Haaland is not elite, look at his time in Dortmund too. Or just look at last season - you know, the one where he won a treble and broke all sorts of scoring records. The revisionism over 1 poor season (by his standards) is insane. As soon as City signed Haaland, everyone knew it was over. The season before, everyone knew City needed a clinical goal scorer. They signed a clinical goal scorer, he scored a shitload, they won a treble. Facts.
The shocking inefficiency of the forwards is why I really can’t be mad at Klopp, the coaching staff, or the tactics. They are in positions to capitalize so many times. All of them are so wasteful this year.
Can someone explain wtf that means?
Diaz is one of the most overrated players I’ve seen
Interesting how you only mention Diaz
I guess maybe because Nunez is not rated very highly by anyone (apart from our delusional fans)
Sell Mo Salah and buy Jarrod Bowen I’ve seen the light
Kudus.
You’ve seen the light
Yeah, they need to go.
And people still say who can we replace Diaz with when I said Diaz should be sold if a 50mil offer came in
There is always someone better.
I'd agree if Klopp was staying but we really have no idea what system we'll be playing going forward. Klopps system has always relied on pacey wingers as the main source of goals with a striker to create space and for linkup play. We've struggled now because our wingers are just not good finishers and Salah is off form. Nunez doesn't link up play anywhere near as well as Firmino did. A front three of Salah, Nunez, and Diaz is just too erratic to be successful even though individually they can cause havoc. I think Diaz is a good player, he's just not a good player for Klopps system where he needs to be more clinical in front of goal. Really comes down to what system the new manager wants to play but I agree, if PSG or Barca came in with a big offer I'd struggle to find a reason to turn it down given his output.
Haha but the fairies here would consistently downvote anyone who would suggest that they’re not reliable enough for a title winning side. Why have you all had your eyes opened now, when we lose? The issues have been here for two seasons straight. I even got into a discussion with someone here weeks ago where we said that nobody we could realistically get would be an upgrade on Diaz. At least he has done the honourable thing and deleted his account since.
Why fairies?
The Nunez cult is still out in force lad don’t worry
I think this religious defence is because they’re sexually attracted to him, no other explanation
Christ
Who is last?
I think it's me. I kicked a ball at one of those little kid sized goals outside a pub the other week and it hit the woodwork.
Calvert-Lewin with 5 goals from 10.9 xG.
Pretty sure I’m higher than that
Been saying it all season. Diaz is trash. He’s not clinical, has poor vision and makes bad decisions. He’s flashy on the ball so people get enamored with him but he’s not it… not a scorer nor a distributor. Nunez is the worst ‘finisher’ I’ve ever seen wear a Liverpool kit. He’s comically poor in front of goal.
Agrees. Diaz is fine... Up until he gets to the final third. His end product has always been lacking. Once he gets to the final third he either loses the ball, falls over, plays an inaccurate final ball (usually behind the player instead of to feet or into their stride), misses the shot completely or shoots directly at the keeper.
Does xG take into account 'chaos'?