Aberdeen v Rangers - 10th Jan

[10menwent2mow]

how does a referee decide what is a non-cynical or unintentional trip by a defender just as an attacker is about to go through on goal?

Because, believe it or not, that's their job.

I mean, how does a ref decide what is a clear goalscoring opportunity and what is not? I dunno, do they use some sort of, let's call it, judgement.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

9 hours ago, coprolite said:

The two main reasons we lost are because sevconians have better players amd because Derek hasn't figured out how to stop them playing this season. 

We went in to the game with a slim chance and it's infuriating to see that reduced to no chance because of a nothing foul. 

At least we had a go today a couple of times when we had the ball. 

I thought we looked decent in the first 15 minutes. As often happens with Scott Wright, he started off causing all kinds of problems then just dropped out of the game completely. 

Rangers are very strong between the halfway line and the opposition penalty box, with generally excellent movement, and once they'd got their foot on the ball and we dropped back to the edge of our box it was only a matter of time until they scored. 

You're never going to beat this Rangers team this season by passively sitting back and hoping to hit them on the break. Once Hedges was red carded any chance went instantly out the window....Rangers just kept the ball for the rest of the game. 

[Dunning1874]

16 hours ago, HibsFan said:

That is fucking incredible.

Foul given to Rangers at 89:25. Two minutes of added time given. Play restarted at 90:20. Referee blows at 91:59.

What chance have you got eh?

Oh, and McCoist just chuckles his way through it. If it happened the other way round, there'd be death threats from the hordes.

Going off topic, but this is a pet hate of mine with referees. It's so petty, but at the same time it's just basic arithmetic. It's extremely easy to get it right and they get it wrong all the time.

The most egregious example I've seen was Scotland v Argentina at the Women's World Cup. Obviously there was a far bigger story in that game with Scotland shitting the bed spectacularly from 3-0 up so it's hard to say it made any difference to the result - just as you get a feeling Aberdeen wouldn't have scored again with 20 minutes of stoppage time yesterday - but it was wild.

Penalty awarded in the 89th minute after 4 minutes of stoppage time had already been indicated. Between retakes and arguments with the referee from both teams, the penalty was finally scored and play restarted in the 94th minute. Final whistle blown in the 95th minute. Both sets of players just looked at the referee wondering what she was giving a freekick for at first, none of them even realised she was blowing for full-time at first because the game should so obviously have been running to a minimum of 98 minutes. When they surrounded her asking what the f**k she was doing she was pointing at her watch as if to say 'there was a minimum of four minutes and I've added some extra, what's your issue?'

Learning to count should be a basic requirement for referees.

 

[G51]

17 hours ago, G51 said:

Wonder what the xG scores will look like.

Answer: 2.1 - 0.34 in Rangers favour, according to Wyscout.

Almost identical to the 4-0 game, which was 1.9 - 0.34.

Death, taxes and Derek McInnes rigidly sticking to a system as it's ruthlessly exploited before his eyes.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Going off topic, but this is a pet hate of mine with referees. It's so petty, but at the same time it's just basic arithmetic. It's extremely easy to get it right and they get it wrong all the time.

The most egregious example I've seen was Scotland v Argentina at the Women's World Cup. Obviously there was a far bigger story in that game with Scotland shitting the bed spectacularly from 3-0 up so it's hard to say it made any difference to the result - just as you get a feeling Aberdeen wouldn't have scored again with 20 minutes of stoppage time yesterday - but it was wild.

Penalty awarded in the 89th minute after 4 minutes of stoppage time had already been indicated. Between retakes and arguments with the referee from both teams, the penalty was finally scored and play restarted in the 94th minute. Final whistle blown in the 95th minute. Both sets of players just looked at the referee wondering what she was giving a freekick for at first, none of them even realised she was blowing for full-time at first because the game should so obviously have been running to a minimum of 98 minutes. When they surrounded her asking what the f**k she was doing she was pointing at her watch as if to say 'there was a minimum of four minutes and I've added some extra, what's your issue?'

Learning to count should be a basic requirement for referees.

 

The referee in this case was some poor, wandering lost soul from Somalia who had quite obviously never officiated at that kind of level before. She literally lost the plot and panicked (a bit like Scotland actually). 

Beatson doesn't quite have that excuse. While the 2 minutes added on wasn't quite a joke, it didn't seem at the time to be a very reasonable amount given the number of stoppages and substitutions in the 2nd half. 

I doubt if it would have made much difference to us anyway. 

[DukDukGoose]

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

Answer: 2.1 - 0.34 in Rangers favour, according to Wyscout.

Almost identical to the 4-0 game, which was 1.9 - 0.34.

Death, taxes and Derek McInnes rigidly sticking to a system as it's ruthlessly exploited before his eyes.

Dearie me.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

4 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Dearie me.

I didn't understand his post either. 

[DukDukGoose]

3 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I didn't understand his post either. 

Oh I understood his point. It just wasn't a very good one.

[G51]

The Dons really don't like it when you point out their flaws do they.

 

[DrewDon]

Stats nonces really are a different breed, man. 

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

The Dons really don't like it when you point out their flaws do they.

Absolutely. Aberdeen fans are renowned for their positive, optimistic views on the current side and in particular the manager. No Aberdeen fan, not fucking one, will take kindly to criticism of the manager or negativity of any form.

[Rodhull]

xG talk really is one of the most boring football developments in recent years. Nerds basically saying nothing but convincing themselves it’s something very profound. 

[DukDukGoose]

7 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Absolutely. Aberdeen fans are renowned for their positive, optimistic views on the current side and in particular the manager. No Aberdeen fan, not fucking one, will take kindly to criticism of the manager or negativity of any form.

What are you trying to say like?! 

1 minute ago, Rodhull said:

xG talk really is one of the most boring football developments in recent years. Nerds basically saying nothing but convincing themselves it’s something very profound. 

There's a lot of merit for it but not when it is used in nonsense examples like above.

[bennett]

Am I the only person who just doesn't get these xG stats....

[DukDukGoose]

22 minutes ago, bennett said:

Am I the only person who just doesn't get these xG stats....

It's effectively a tool to show you how good the chances you are creating actually are.

You could have 23 shots in a game and lose to an opponent who had 2. Looking at it purely as number the team that had 23 shots should have won. Look further in to the stats and all 23 could have been speculative efforts that are never going to score whereas the 2 for the opposition were in better positions etc.

That's a very basic explanation of it.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Merkland Red

[DrewDon]

1 hour ago, Rodhull said:

xG talk really is one of the most boring football developments in recent years. Nerds basically saying nothing but convincing themselves it’s something very profound. 

My theory is that most folk who obsess over xG and suchlike aren't actually very bright, so over-analysing and intellectualising football matches is their way of compensating for that and making themselves feel smarter than they actually are. 

[Rodhull]

11 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

My theory is that most folk who obsess over xG and suchlike aren't actually very bright, so over-analysing and intellectualising football matches is their way of compensating for that and making themselves feel smarter than they actually are. 

It’s a marginal improvement on using Football Manager for real life analysis but that’s about it.

[DukDukGoose]

12 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

It’s a marginal improvement on using Football Manager for real life analysis but that’s about it.

Why do most teams in the big leagues use it then? It must have some use.

[Rodhull]

17 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Why do most teams in the big leagues use it then? It must have some use.

Good for them if they do but reading someone on here or hearing someone on a podcast saying that a team created 0.78 expected goals compared to previously creating 1.11 expected goals tells me nothing about a game or series of games as it rarely comes with the necessary context to make any judgement based on it. I’m sure all the big teams only use it as one part of an exhaustive set of details or analysis tools whereas outside of that it’s just a new toy for lay people who want to make themselves sound clever but are ultimately saying very little.

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, Rodhull said:

Good for them if they do but reading someone on here or hearing someone on a podcast saying that a team created 0.78 expected goals compared to previously creating 1.11 expected goals tells me nothing about a game or series of games as it rarely comes with the necessary context to make any judgement based on it. I’m sure all the big teams only use it as one part of an exhaustive set of details or analysis tools whereas outside of that it’s just a new toy for lay people who want to make themselves sound clever but are ultimately saying very little.

Times are changing, pal.