Ousmane Dembélé

[feggydinho]

lol@arguing seriously.

Your arguments inthemselves admit that your model is not the TRUTH.
It is a model of reality which has many limitations and is best used with a large sample.

The only fact is that your model says it is 0.09 and everybody else realize that your model is wrong on this occasion.
Almost everybody else realize Dembele is a shit player as well, but I see you have ways to help him through statistics... Well you will have a hard time winning over people who trust their own eyes.

That wasnt a definite chance, and the fact that most people here are calling it an easy chance shows the bias. If it was Messi missing that, ppl wouldve said its a tough chance. (The funny thing is that we immediately looked dangerous when he came on, and if anything at all then he was supposed to come on earlier)

 

[FCMessi]

Dude who has compared him with peak Messi

Expecting Dembele to assist\score a gaming winning goal in 15 min against a league-leading ATM after having rarely played in the last a few games.

what kind of expectation is that?

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Expecting Dembele to assist\score a gaming winning goal in 15 min against a league-leading ATM after having rarely played in the last a few games.

what kind of expectation is that?

Nobody expected a goal from him but an impact which he has brought to the match. Should have subbed already in 60th minute.

 

[Birdy]

The only fact is that your model says it is 0.09 and everybody else realize that your model is wrong on this occasion.
Almost everybody else realize Dembele is a shit player as well, but I see you have ways to help him through statistics... Well you will have a hard time winning over people who trust their own eyes.

Your point: 'testimony is better than science' LOL
Let's ask people around then what's the distance between two points and conclude the most common answer, instead of measuring it
LOL LOL LOL

I am not gonna continue this discussion because you are ridiculing it.
I am just gonna say to you - just for you to know for the future so as to not embarrass yourself again - And because you are clearly clueless about xG models - that
the number is the result of simulating million different executions of the shot under the same conditions. The relative weight of each condition is also the result of analyzing tons of empirical data from all games of football (all shots taken, goals scored) and estimating the % of each condition relative to the outcome

Dude you are a serious troll

 

[Birdy]

Birdy can you link the sources for the xG for that shot?

You can click on each shot of the shotmap to see the relative weight

Infogol has it at 0.09
Understat has it at 0.12

Fbref - who is based on STatsbomb analytics (one of the best out there) has it at 0.1

 

[DonAK]

Awful player.

 

[mc_lovin]

Your point: 'testimony is better than science' LOL
Let's ask people around then what's the distance between two points and conclude the most common answer, instead of measuring it
LOL LOL LOL

I am not gonna continue this discussion because you are ridiculing it.
I am just gonna say to you - just for you to know for the future so as to not embarrass yourself again - And because you are clearly clueless about xG models - that
the number is the result of simulating million different executions of the shot under the same conditions. The relative weight of each condition is also the result of analyzing tons of empirical data from all games of football (all shots taken, goals scored) and estimating the % of each condition relative to the outcome

Dude you are a serious troll

Your problem is that you take the science at face value in highly complex systems. Its an interesting stat, but theres still a lot of soul searching to do before explaining football by pure numbers.

 

[Bobo32]

Your point: 'testimony is better than science' LOL
Let's ask people around then what's the distance between two points and conclude the most common answer, instead of measuring it
LOL LOL LOL

I am not gonna continue this discussion because you are ridiculing it.
I am just gonna say to you - just for you to know for the future so as to not embarrass yourself again - And because you are clearly clueless about xG models - that
the number is the result of simulating million different executions of the shot under the same conditions. The relative weight of each condition is also the result of analyzing tons of empirical data from all games of football (all shots taken, goals scored) and estimating the % of each condition relative to the outcome

Dude you are a serious troll

I will end too, and leave you with your blind belief in what you call "science" - to speak like you do you are clearly either way outside of science, or you are some very indoctrinated researcher who wrongly wants to explain a game you don't understand with methods that might work in other fields. But I doubt it is the latter as you should then still have a better intuition probably, and understand what the boundaries are.

I will just say that this situation never occured before and never will occur again. Your model is an estimation, missing A LOT of variables. It's a good estimation over the course of a season, or even to give a clue about who should've won in a single game, but it's clearly not "the answer" for a single situation.

 

[JohnN]

Your point: 'testimony is better than science' LOL
Let's ask people around then what's the distance between two points and conclude the most common answer, instead of measuring it
LOL LOL LOL

I am not gonna continue this discussion because you are ridiculing it.
I am just gonna say to you - just for you to know for the future so as to not embarrass yourself again - And because you are clearly clueless about xG models - that
the number is the result of simulating million different executions of the shot under the same conditions. The relative weight of each condition is also the result of analyzing tons of empirical data from all games of football (all shots taken, goals scored) and estimating the % of each condition relative to the outcome

Dude you are a serious troll

So, you are confident that lewandowski would score that chance close to 1% of the time?

 

[CatalinR10]

You can click on each shot of the shotmap to see the relative weight

Infogol has it at 0.09
Understat has it at 0.12

Fbref - who is based on STatsbomb analytics (one of the best out there) has it at 0.1

so based on these stats , scoring a goal from outside the box is like winning the lottery



Gotcha.

 

[vegitot]

Some people here are funny.
Projecting their hatred against Dembele all over and in every possible discussion, but when you tell them the header was not a big chance they go 'oh no this can't be true'
No it can.
Go read to see why it's true...

But you are not interested in finding this out,
you are rather interested in lashing out against an easy scapegoat each time



AGAIN: you don't decide the number.
most models I have looked since yesterday have it between 0.09 and 0.12
At best it gets converted 12 out of 100 times.
FACT
get over it and start arguing seriously



So in only 15' he had 3/4 successful dribbles, with one of which he created a break on the left of Atleti's defence that led to the FK taken by Messi.
He created a chance with his pass to the box.
All in all, he comes in and we look for the first time dangerous in a game where until then we were completely toothless upfront against a well-parked bus

But he missed a header that goes in at best approximately 1 out of 10 times.
Criminal
He should be hanged outside of Camp Nou

3/4 dribble??? WTF??? Is that your own stat???
He attempts 2 dribbles and fails to complete any. 0/2 dribble.

 

[khaled_a_d]

That wasnt a definite chance, and the fact that most people here are calling it an easy chance shows the bias.

It wasn't a definite chance, but it wasn't because it wasn't an easy one.
Dembele is simply not athletic enough in terms of jumping ability, neither he is tall or a good poacher. He approached that play wrong from the start and he just put some power in it.
If it was a number 9 like Benzema, Lewa or even a good CB who deal with header like Pique and Araujo it should have at least resulted in an excellent save from the GK if not a goal.
But Dembele has scored one goal in his entire club career from header, out of 51 he scored in total.

 

[Laplacian]

He's athletic, he just doesn't have any instinct.

3/4 dribble??? WTF??? Is that your own stat???
He attempts 2 dribbles and fails to complete any. 0/2 dribble.

He did one of his kick and runs which resulted in a foul, so that's one dribble. Every other attempt he basically ran straight into the player as always.

 

[vegitot]

He's athletic, he just doesn't have any instinct.



He did one of his kick and runs which resulted in a foul, so that's one dribble. Every other attempt he basically ran straight into the player as always.

If you use stats definition, then successful dribble is when a player beat his marker while still retaining the ball. Dembele not yet beat his opponent because he is fouled.

Still that is a good attempt but there is no 3/4 successful dribble.

 

[FCMessi]

How many Barca players can on regular basis dribble past well positioned defenders in static 1 on 1/many ?

Probably less than 3 excluding Fati.