Clinical

[cricketfieldclarets]

Fantastic in front of goal today. Thats what happens when you shoot!

Ironic thing is we didnt play THAT well. Weve dominated more and lost. Olympiakos at home too and drew.

Lennon and JBG though were the difference. Huge today.

And SDs subs too. winning 2 nil and still makes early subs. Everything clicked.

Massive result.

[Longsidelenny]

You called it Wright early in the week cricketfield but we certainly neederd well done to you and the clarets

[ClaretAL]

i think the difference today was Vydra. He took the pressure off the wingers and gave us another dimension and something else for their defenders to think about. He was quick and the runs he was making were intelligent, and also he linked up with the others as if he had been here a while so he reads the game too. I think he is the number 10 we have been crying out for, and it just goes to show with hardly a mention of the midfield on here today. Good to see an long may it continue.

[Hibsclaret]

Still not at our best but much better and definitely clinical....

[cricketfieldclarets]

i think the difference today was Vydra. He took the pressure off the wingers and gave us another dimension and something else for their defenders to think about. He was quick and the runs he was making were intelligent, and also he linked up with the others as if he had been here a while so he reads the game too. I think he is the number 10 we have been crying out for, and it just goes to show with hardly a mention of the midfield on here today. Good to see an long may it continue.

Absolutely. He was fantastic. Has everything we were missing. Like Ings but less injury prone and a fraction of the price.

[jrgbfc]

Still not at our best but much better and definitely clinical....

Glad you're OK Hibsclaret! Was a bit worried about you when I saw that Taylor was starting instead of Ward

[scouseclaret]

The difference today was JBG - at the heart of everything we did, the creative spark we’ve been looking for.

[jurek]

The stats suggest that too.
We had much less possession than Bournemouth
with 12 attempts and 5 on target to their 19 attempts but also only 5 on target.

We can also than Hart for ensuring at least one of their 5 on target was well saved.

What a relief!

[cricketfieldclarets]

The stats suggest that too.
We had much less possession than Bournemouth
with 12 attempts and 5 on target to their 19 attempts but also only 5 on target.

We can also than Hart for ensuring at least one of their 5 on target was well saved.

What a relief!

Is that the case, we only had 5 shots on goal? There we go. 4 IS Clinical.

[Cleveleys_claret]

How do they work that out as in the build up to the first goal Westwood had 2 shots on target?

[tiger76]

Possession means nothing if you don't use it well,goals change games,today we took our chances,and crucially held out when Bournemouth had a long spell of pressure in the 2nd half.If they had pulled one back with 20 minutes to go,things could have got very nervy.

[burnleymik]

i think the difference today was Vydra. He took the pressure off the wingers and gave us another dimension and something else for their defenders to think about. He was quick and the runs he was making were intelligent, and also he linked up with the others as if he had been here a while so he reads the game too. I think he is the number 10 we have been crying out for, and it just goes to show with hardly a mention of the midfield on here today. Good to see an long may it continue.

Some very good points, I also don't think we should undermine the work of Vokes today, he did a lot of donkey work and was pulling their defenders all over the place. Him and Vydra linked up very well.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Some very good points, I also don't think we should undermine the work of Vokes today, he did a lot of donkey work and was pulling their defenders all over the place. Him and Vydra linked up very well.

Everytime we have a nimble striker vokes stands out. Ings. Gray. Noe vydra.

[Hibsclaret]

Everytime we have a nimble striker vokes stands out. Ings. Gray. Noe vydra.

He certainly does. Sam the man doing what he does best. Shame he didn’t get a goal today. He likes scoring in Wales so here’s hoping

[Rileybobs]

How do they work that out as in the build up to the first goal Westwood had 2 shots on target?

I think they would count as blocked, even though they were on target. I'm not sure how we only had 5 on target though seeing as JBG had his shot tipped onto the post leading to Barnes' first goal and JBG also fired one straight down Begovic's throat at 2-0.

[dsr]

How do they work that out as in the build up to the first goal Westwood had 2 shots on target?

You're expecting logic where logic isn't to be found. A shot which the goalkeeper saves is on target; a shot which hits a defender in front of the goalkeeper is not on target. Apparently.

[dsr]

I think they would count as blocked, even though they were on target. I'm not sure how we only had 5 on target though seeing as JBG had his shot tipped onto the post leading to Barnes' first goal and JBG also fired one straight down Begovic's throat at 2-0.

Same issue. It was a defender who deflected it onto the post, not the goalkeeper, so it wasn't on target. Apparently.

[Rileybobs]

Same issue. It was a defender who deflected it onto the post, not the goalkeeper, so it wasn't on target. Apparently.

Ah, fair enough. I thought Begovic had saved it. Shows how stats can be misleading because Hart only made one save of note whereas we scored a couple of tap-ins.

[dsr]

Another odd stat - according to MotD, our "expected goals" was a fraction over 2. 2.06, something like that. But I'd have thought both Vydra and Barnes were pretty close to 1 expected goal each, being tap-ins, and Barnes' second was a pretty decent chance, and we had a dozen shots altogether - are they really saying that from all the positions we shot from, on most days we would have scored only 2 and on a below-average day, 1?

[Tall Paul]

Ah, fair enough. I thought Begovic had saved it. Shows how stats can be misleading because Hart only made one save of note whereas we scored a couple of tap-ins.

This is why expected goals is a far better metric than total shots and shots on target.

Another odd stat - according to MotD, our "expected goals" was a fraction over 2. 2.06, something like that. But I'd have thought both Vydra and Barnes were pretty close to 1 expected goal each, being tap-ins, and Barnes' second was a pretty decent chance, and we had a dozen shots altogether - are they really saying that from all the positions we shot from, on most days we would have scored only 2 and on a below-average day, 1?

Barnes's first was 0.86 xG, which is as pretty much as close to one as they get. Vydra's was 0.61.

People do tend to overestimate chances of scoring.

[SGr]

All about creating clear cut chances

[dsr]

Barnes's first was 0.86 xG ...

Would we expect that to be missed 1 time in 7?

[Tall Paul]

Would we expect that to be missed 1 time in 7?

Possibly, or saved or blocked. Sterling missed one from a similar position against us last season.

It's not a perfect model, there are far too many variables and those sort of chances probably don't come around often enough to get a meaningful sample size. It's far better than registering it just as a shot on target.