Match of the day

[miele-man]

MOTD on tonight , I don’t think it’s been on all season but I understand it’s on tonight, think I’ll watch it .

[ElectroClaret]

We'll still be on last...

[Lip]

I will be watching for the first time this season.

[claretwardy88]

I'm exactly the same just can't watch when we lose

[Cubanforever]

Ditto, can't wait

[bfcjg]

First time for me as well, is it still Jimmy Hill ?

[Westleigh]

It’ll all be about Sheff U losing ,

[Elizabeth]

I think we would still have won 5-0 without the sending off. I hope this is downplayed on MOTD

[claretblue]

what channel?

[bobinho]

Pen shout in the first half. Will it be forgotten because it didn’t affect the result?. Shouldn’t be, should be scrutinised.

[fidelcastro]

First time for me as well, is it still Jimmy Hill ?

David Coleman, I think.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We'll still be on last...

Surprisingly we were on first

[daveisaclaret]

The Jay Rod interview was top quality

[CoolClaret]

Shearer is spot on

We mixed it up so much more today than we have during any game this season - even played more direct last season than we have at times during this season!

Hopefully it continues, all the best teams mix it up at times.

[Elizabeth]

Great coverage

[HahaYeah]

The opening sequence is a bit Grange Hill looking.

[Rowls]

Very enjoyable.

Wish they'd included the foul on Amdouni that could have been a penalty but shan't quibble with that coverage.

[Nonayforever]

I think Lineker was actually gushing when speaking to VK.

[addisclaret]

Better keep an eye on Cunha on Tuesday night, made Rice look like Ollie McDonkey a couple of times there.

[Juan Tanamera]

I was still watching from behind the settee.
You can't be too careful.

[Rowls]

I was still watching from behind the settee.
You can't be too careful.

Even after Dr Who finished.

[Bosscat]

We'll still be on last...

[Westleigh]

I think Lineker was actually gushing when speaking to VK.

He’s always been a groveller to his betters.

[Taffy on the wing]

David Coleman, I think.

BEST commentator ever?........Smartest for sure!
I wish there were still some like him.

[Foulthrow]

Did anyone else spot our XG? Less than two goals. Which of our three were we not meant to score? Brownhill’s was a difficult chance but the rest seemed fairly straightforward.

[beddie]

Don’t think we’ve had such good coverage since, well to be honest I can’t remember. Brilliant. And I agree Shearer was spot on. I still think JBL made a big difference.

[mdd2]

David Coleman said this about Liverpools Tommy Smith as the camera honed in on his acne scarred face
“Tommy’s Smith, in Liverpool they say he wasn’t born, he was quarried”

[Stalbansclaret]

Excellent coverage and a bit surprised to be on first ahead of Arsenal. I find the paranoid delusion that many of our fans have re MotD pathetic tbh. Coming off the game today a bloke next to me overheard me saying “I can watch MotD tonight now” and muttered “ Bet they don’t show it” . I mean how thick do you have to be. I’d say the pundits on there have, if anything, been overly kind to us this season given some of our displays.
Also don’t get the hate towards Lineker who always seems a thoroughly decent and intelligent bloke to me and certainly a lot better person than his numbskull critics.

[Jamesy]

I still didn’t watch it! I can’t stand the smug sanctimonious Gary Lineker.

[strayclaret]

Just watched the first 10 minutes three times. That’s three times more than I have done this season

[claret59]

Did I hear correctly when Shearer referred to the clarets as 'Our' and 'Us' ? Also was the lady Saturday presenter on the results programme a Burnley supporter? She sounded a bit like she was but perhaps the result has dulled my senses(or heightened them!)

[simonclaret]

Did anyone else spot our XG? Less than two goals. Which of our three were we not meant to score? Brownhill’s was a difficult chance but the rest seemed fairly straightforward.

That's how xG works - I would guess that our second goal was the highest xG, but we've all seen plenty of similar chances missed or saved. The other 4 were really well taken. Koleosho's goal was probably the lowest xG, not much margin for error with the chance from that position. Brownhill's chance would be missed more often than not.

[burnmark]

Alistair Mann has been around a long time now. I always remember him commentating on Granada Soccer Night etc back in the 90s. Always been quite fair and complimentary towards us as a club I feel.

[Zom Zom]

Did I hear correctly when Shearer referred to the clarets as 'Our' and 'Us' ? Also was the lady Saturday presenter on the results programme a Burnley supporter? She sounded a bit like she was but perhaps the result has dulled my senses(or heightened them!)

The lady on the Saturday panel on Final Score was born in Burnley, supports Burnley and is a former England keeper. Rachel Brown.

[brunlea99]

Rachel is married to Ian Finnis who is Tommy Fleetwood's caddy.

[bobinho]

Shearer summed it up perfectly. Every comment he made was bang on the money.

As for Lineker? No problem with his presenting, it’s the excess baggage that gets on peoples tits…

[Rowls]

That's how xG works - I would guess that our second goal was the highest xG, but we've all seen plenty of similar chances missed or saved. The other 4 were really well taken. Koleosho's goal was probably the lowest xG, not much margin for error with the chance from that position. Brownhill's chance would be missed more often than not.

I believe that each chance is given a rating between 0-1 based onn the likelihood that it will be scored.

Anything below 0.5 is more likely to not result in a goal, anything over is more likely to result in a goal.

So (if I've understood it properly) two good chances with only an xG value of over 0.5 doesn't necessary result in a high xG.

For example, think of us creating two chances rated at 0.51. By definition both more likely to be scored than not. If your strikers are on form, you can "expect" them to score both chances. But it will only give you an xG of "1.02 goals".

That's IF I've understood it correctly. Big caveat in that. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Bookies take advantage of this kind of statistical sleight of hand with the old "more than 2.5 goals" trick. The mean average goals per game is over 2 but of course you can't score "half a goal".

If I'm correct then welcome to the post truth world where anything can be proven with statistics. Responses welcome because it's only my understanding of it.

[CoolClaret]

I believe that each chance is given a rating between 0-1 based onn the likelihood that it will be scored.

Anything below 0.5 is more likely to not result in a goal, anything over is more likely to result in a goal.

So (if I've understood it properly) two good chances with only an xG value of over 0.5 doesn't necessary result in a high xG.

For example, think of us creating two chances rated at 0.51. By definition both more likely to be scored than not. If your strikers are on form, you can "expect" them to score both chances. But it will only give you an xG of "1.02 goals".

That's IF I've understood it correctly. Big caveat in that. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Bookies take advantage of this kind of statistical sleight of hand with the old "more than 2.5 goals" trick. The mean average goals per game is over 2 but of course you can't score "half a goal".

If I'm correct then welcome to the post truth world where anything can be proven with statistics. Responses welcome because it's only my understanding of it.

It’s best using to analyse a teams performance after a run of games, not necessarily one off games.

It’s literally just the an average from all the data taken from a shot taken in that exact position on the field, pressure from defenders, path to goal etc - with clinical players you will tend to score more than your xG and vice versa.

But right now, the xG differential is the best stat to predict the longer term success of a team.

If a team has a positive xG differential then the law of averages dictates that they’re going to be picking up more wins than a team that has a negative one.

Case in point last season in the champ.

When Blackburn were top 3 and hadn’t drawn a game, their underlying data / xG showed that it was a paper tiger position. They had a significant negative xG differential which suggested that their team was being clinical but if it kept up then wins would start turning in to draws/losses and their position would slide and that’s exactly what it did.

Conversely, our underlying stats and xG was very good last season and never really changed - was even good when we were getting a few draws and had a few difficulties in the first 10 games or so, suggesting that if we kept it up, some of the draws would become wins and some of the losses would become draws…. Which is again exactly what happened!

[Rowls]

Oh yes, it's a useful tool. No doubt about that.

But it's only useful IF you understand the measure AND use it wisely.

[Funkydrummer]

It's a load of llobocks.

[IanMcL]

I think we scored 5.

[simonclaret]

I think Rowls is right.

As for it being ********, I find it interesting to understand the overall balance of a game and the quality of chances created.

[dougcollins]

I think Lineker was actually gushing when speaking to VK.

Sh!t scared of him.

Like he should be.