FT ARS 2-0 PSG A tale of two halves: We were very convincing in 1T. Not quite so much in 2T. Not a glorious blow out like some other scores today, but it was PSG, so... JOB DONE
PSG's total xG: 0.26 Goals were a little fortunate, but the clean sheet wasn't. First-gear win, love to see it.
Interestingly low xG. They hit the woodwork at least twice. But I guess xG doesn't factor that in. My feeling about 2T was that we were a bit fortunate to not concede. YMMV And of course fortunate that Dembele & Enrique had a bit of a argument. He might've made the difference.
The 3 best chances of the second half were all ours. We're very, very good at bend, don't break defending, and restricting the opposition to low-quality chances.
As defined by xG? But we didn't hit the woodwork in 2T like they did. What I recall is Marti hitting it at their keeper
9 matches into the season, still unbeaten with 6 wins and 3 draws across 3 competitions, and we have yet to put our strongest 11 on the pitch. Nothing remarkable from Merino in his 30 minute debut for the club, but the fact he didn't re injure his shoulder and got some real game time is a win in my book. With so many defensive options this season, it made me wonder how Mikel will keep everyone happy at the back, and whether he would actually rest Big Gabi or Saliba for a game or two here or there. I hear Ben White has a knock, but is that true, or just protecting his ego while Arteta gets a look at Timber and Califiori as the full backs? If/when White is 100%, is he no longer the first choice right back? If we were to spell Big Gabi a game, whose the next man in line to step in for him? Same question for Saliba? Honestly I'm not sure if it's Kiwior or Cali or White. Thoughts?
TH14 just asked BS7 if this is the year we win a title. And he basically said yes. p.s. After the interview was over, Kate Abdo asked "Is Bukayo our favorite player to interview?"
I think White really is injured, otherwise he'd be on the bench. But I understand what you're saying. We have quite a bit of quality and versatility in our defenders so there's gonna be a time when Ben loses his lock on starting RB. But I kinda doubt they (Mikel) would invent and injury so he can save face. Personally I hope Mikel just rotates more this season with the quality he has. It could be the key to realizing what Bukayo just said... win a title. As for the CB's we have so many people now who can deputize. Calafiori, Timber, White, Tomi, Kiwior. I'm much less nervous about our back line as I was last season.
I'd love to see Cali and either White or Kiwior (or even Tomi if he's healthy) start at centerback vs. Preston at the end of the month.
Not serious for Timber: Arteta on Timber:He was unbelievable in the first half but he felt something muscular and he wasn’t certain. He’s played more minutes than we would have wanted in the past few weeks and we have to manage him. https://t.co/WrtMJLRjb4— Kaya Kaynak (@kayakaynak97) October 1, 2024
Not serious perhaps but still a little troubling. I've heard mentioned a lot that when you come back from ACL, there's a tendency to pick up other muscular niggles, sometimes more than one, or one that comes and goes. Crossing fingers.
As Titi said on the post-match show, very professional win. We never really got past second gear, yet still had enough to take all three points. Hopefully, Timber is okay. But if he's not and Tomiyasu is back in training, let him play right back on Saturday and then a nice fortnight rest for everyone except Rice and Saka.....
If a shot is taken from far out or a really bad angle, the xG is low regardless of whether the shooter is lucky enough to hit the woodwork or even score.
Yup. And that's why I said xG doesn't factor that in. My point was that in reality a low-xG shot that bounces off the turf and then onto the bar, actually had a quite high probability of being a goal. (just 4" lower et voila) Thus xG doesn't always convey how close we were to conceding goals from certain shots. I guess I shoulda only watched xG stats in 2T rather than the actual game, then I woulda been less nervous that we were on the verge of conceding.
This is all painfully ignorant. I deliberately say ignorant because you don’t care enough to understand xG, but have tripled down on what you think it is.
Despite your wink at the end, I in no way---nor has anyone here---ever said that stats tell the entire story of a match.
I agree. And I never said you or anyone said that. (see other thread a few days ago) However, the crux of today’s discussion was about how I felt while watching 2T that we were close to conceding. Then @ArsenalMetro replied that we had been odds-on to keep a clean sheet, and that the 3 best chances in 2T were ours. I assumed that was based on xG, asked them if that was true, but no reply. Seemed a safe assumption no? So then I brought up PSG’s 2T shot off the bar, which I argued was a big chance with higher probability of actually becoming a goal, than its presumed 10%-ish xG. I understood and acknowledged up front that xG algorithms don’t factor in whether woodwork is actually hit. I was of course just trying to explain and exemplify why I felt we were closer to conceding in 2T than Metro did. And contrary to what some of you may think I’m not an xG hater. But I do find it a metric with limitations that seem to be overlooked at times, when cited for certain conclusions. And I surely know that xG is quite popular and mainstream. And by saying to Metro at the time “YMMV” that was my way of accepting them or others that disagree with how I felt or saw our vulnerability in 2T or lack-thereof Ps. my little joke/wink at the end was not directed at you, or even at Metro. Was just poking fun at the theoretical fan who “watches” more via stats than via their eyes.
No one said you were an xG hater. What’s been said is you don’t understand xG. And what I said is your ignorant of what xG is and decided to quadruple down on your ignorance.
Please say less, it's not that serious. Where a shot ends up has nothing to do with how good of a chance it was. Martinelli was in a great spot twice in the second half and put his shot straight at the goalkeeper both times (plus the Havertz header). PSG was in a worse position and hit the crossbar. Our chances were better than that one and the rest of the nothing they conjured in the second half. Obviously in the literal sense, but sometimes when a team hits the woodwork, you're surprised, and that happened both times today. "Whoa, didn't think that would get so close!" Like, obviously if Mendes and Neves had hit their shots just a teensy little bit better, they would've gone in, but they were chances from nothing - not part of an onslaught, not a stroke of fortune after a great counterattack. Just shot attempts that would normally flitter wide or high and you'd never think about again. Today they were closer than usual, but you just kind of move on from them during the course of a game.
It's actually a great example of why the human brain tends to be bad at probability. For instance the tame shot at the keeper was at least on target. But a cannon that hits the bar is off target with 0% chance of scoring, no different to row Z. The 'closeness' or 'luckiness' is a human heuristic that is completely meaningless in my opinion. It feels like a close shave, but actually it is far luckier when a high XG chance is hit straight at the keeper/
The problem with your argument is they always had 0% chance of being goals because they were off target shots. There was no higher probability. You want to assign them a very human idea of "luckiness' which isn't really a thing, but it very understandable in terms of how human brains view the world.
To be fair it is closer to scoring than a shot at the keeper he saves even though it is a 0% probability so luck or whatever comes into it either way, we beat them and I am confident in this squad and manager