St Johnstone vs Rangers, Wednesday 21 April, 2021

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

On the flip side, I have felt that quite often when we *do* allow chances inside the box they tend to often be extremely good chances. Eg rebounds that fall right to the feet of a striker (O’Hara’s goal at Mcdiarmid for Motherwell, Hayes at Aberdeen) or otherwise extremely high percentage chances. That often feels like a function of how we play - ie if you do get behind our defence you are rewarded with a good chance. That’s the opposite of a lot of what we did earlier in the season (loads of headers under pressure from an infinite number of crosses).

Thats why we hear a lot of “a better keeper would have saved that” about Clark. There’s definitely an element of that which is true, and he is definitely not at the level he was at when he first became number one. But equally I think that save percentage stat paints a very slightly false picture.

That's what xG is there to try and help show.

I've not checked in a few weeks but he was near the bottom in terms of preventing goals using that metric too.

[tree house tam]

8 hours ago, PauloPerth said:

Agreed.  It's called confirmation bias apparently. People have formed opinions on Clark, and look for every opportunity to prove it.  

It was a howler by Rooney for the goal.

Dont get me wrong, Clark's certainly regressed over the past few seasons from when he was being touted for a Scotland squad call up, and definitely needs genuine competition for the starting place.  He's had a couple of dreadful performances; rangers at home the first time, Dundee away, for example, but he's also played a big part in the league cup quarter and semi final victories.

Its fine to say we need another keeper or you don't rate him or whatever, but calling a current Saints player clownshoes, who is one of only 2 Saints keepers in our history to start in a major trophy win, is pretty pish.  

It's the kind of thing you usually get from OF fans, or they folk who claim to support the likes of Man Utd and slaughter all the players they don't rate cos they don't win every match.

Different if he carried on like Rowan Vine or Andy Rhodes and had no respect for the club, but that's not the case with Clark.

Aye so he's been a good servant to Saints and we shouldn't call him out for being statistically the WORST keeper in the league? He gets paid very very well in his chosen career Paulo, he deserves to be called out, along with the goalkeeping coaching staff when standards slip to the complete shambles that they are. As others have said it's a bloody miracle we are in the top half with someone  as statistically bad as Clark in goals.

If we were say 10 less goals conceded, which is probably a fair amount considering the relative stats between keepers. That could be 5-10 points worth in the league, Europe home and hosed with at least another 80 grand in prize money. That's the difference between a good season and a great season, we should always strive for the best Paulo or there isn't any point in trying at all.

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

You're a grown man, presumably in his 50s/60s, trying to get a stranger on a football forum to "come say that to my face".

It's not me "acting like a big man", m8.

Yeah, that's not the case here. You specifically @'ed my name so I would be notified of your comment, which was an insult by framing an obvious piss take thread as if it was serious. As for my reply, I was simply stating a fact - you wouldn't have said to my face what you wrote here (for several reasons). You start off with "you're a grown man", and you are right I am. Perhaps you should follow my lead?

Don't @ people with insults then complain when people reply.

[tree house tam]

I think this might be the first time I'm actually waiting with anticipation on a Random reply.

[Jamie_B]

5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

That's what xG is there to try and help show.

I've not checked in a few weeks but he was near the bottom in terms of preventing goals using that metric too.

I do wonder about that metric in terms of judging individual goals - or even a handful of them - though. xG gives you the long term percentage chance of scoring from a particular chance. It doesn’t tell you the actual quality of the chance or, importantly, the actual quality of the finish. Eg Shankland’s goal at Tannadice must have been 0.01 xG so counts heavily against Clark - but it was an absolutely staggering finish and I don’t think Clark was in an unreasonable position to start with or *should have saved it*. Absolutely over a season it can tell you a lot about a team’s finishing etc, but using it to then measure a sub set of statistics within that which is so dependent on the actual quality of finishing rather than the percentage chance of a goal being scored over the long term could give a false impression.

Again, it wouldn’t surprise me if his form this year is statistically below average, but you’re not seeing him literally throwing the ball into his net like the likes of Chapman have been doing either.

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yeah, that's not the case here. You specifically @'ed my name so I would be notified of your comment, which was an insult by framing an obvious piss take thread as if it was serious. As for my reply, I was simply stating a fact - you wouldn't have said to my face what you wrote here (for several reasons). You start off with "you're a grown man", and you are right I am. Perhaps you should follow my lead?

Don't @ people with insults then complain when people reply.

I tagged you as I'd rather let folk know I'm insulting them than weasel away in the background. 

I'll make sure not to bother next time I call you a moron, though.

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

I do wonder about that metric in terms of judging individual goals - or even a handful of them - though. xG gives you the long term percentage chance of scoring from a particular chance. It doesn’t tell you the actual quality of the chance or, importantly, the actual quality of the finish. Eg Shankland’s goal at Tannadice must have been 0.01 xG so counts heavily against Clark - but it was an absolutely staggering finish and I don’t think Clark was in an unreasonable position to start with or *should have saved it*. Absolutely over a season it can tell you a lot about a team’s finishing etc, but using it to then measure a sub set of statistics within that which is so dependent on the actual quality of finishing rather than the percentage chance of a goal being scored over the long term could give a false impression.

Again, it wouldn’t surprise me if his form this year is statistically below average, but you’re not seeing him literally throwing the ball into his net like the likes of Chapman have been doing either.

It is adjusted for goalkeepers, as xG and xGA for the same shot can be different.

Individual goals can influence it, but over the piece every goalkeeper concedes low quality shots at some point. Clark remains near the bottom because he doesn't stop higher quality chances either.

Edited April 24, 2021 by RandomGuy.

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

I tagged you as I'd rather let folk know I'm insulting them than weasel away in the background. 

I'll make sure not to bother next time I call you a moron, though.

While it's protracted, I'll take your apology.

[tree house tam]

7 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

I do wonder about that metric in terms of judging individual goals - or even a handful of them - though. xG gives you the long term percentage chance of scoring from a particular chance. It doesn’t tell you the actual quality of the chance or, importantly, the actual quality of the finish. Eg Shankland’s goal at Tannadice must have been 0.01 xG so counts heavily against Clark - but it was an absolutely staggering finish and I don’t think Clark was in an unreasonable position to start with or *should have saved it*. Absolutely over a season it can tell you a lot about a team’s finishing etc, but using it to then measure a sub set of statistics within that which is so dependent on the actual quality of finishing rather than the percentage chance of a goal being scored over the long term could give a false impression.

Again, it wouldn’t surprise me if his form this year is statistically below average, but you’re not seeing him literally throwing the ball into his net like the likes of Chapman have been doing either.

If Keepers aren't expected to save shots from 50 yards the game is fucked.

Sure it was something Shankland will struggle to hit the same again but there's a reason keepers hardly ever get beaten by shots like that.

[Jamie_B]

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

It is adjusted for goalkeepers, as xG and xGA for the same shot can be different.

Individual goals can influence it, but over the piece every goalkeeper concedes low quality shots at some point. Clark remains near the bottom because he doesn't stop higher quality chances either.

That’s the real issue at the end - he doesn’t make many “big” saves these days and I think he did that far more often when he first came in. You can forgive not saving the long range efforts that go right into the corner if he makes match winning saves. It doesn’t happen often and it’s probably exacerbated by the fact our finishing at the other end is not brilliant. As such you get those games that finish 1-1 with an xG score of Saints 2.4 Away team 0.7...

[RandomGuy.]

I'll put this in spoilers to stop cluttering the thread, but this is keeper sorted by "prevented goals" this season, top of the list is the worst...

Spoiler

Eastwoods disaster on the opening day the worst, and pleasing personally to see my belief Parish is worse than Clark backed up. Clark has "cost" us 6/7 goals this season.

Variance is a thing, so if you picture an average line running in a straight line, you'll always have your GK performing above/below it game by game, but it should average out over the season. If keepers have played over 800 mins then you can start to claim thats their ability, if they've played over 2000 minutes, its their level. Clark spends more time underperforming his xGA than overperforming it, so sits on a negative figure.

Best keepers by p90 figures, over 800 mins, are Siegrist, Bain (?!), Kelly, McGregor, and McLaughlin.

19/20, only players over 600 mins to cut out some noise...

Again, one of the worst, and again costing us goals on paper. I know folk liked Hladky but he didn't do that well on paper, and Alnwick has been an upgrade. 

In 18/19 Clark runs at a positive figure.

Said it before, but feel like it backs up what a lot of people have seen. Steady decline since 18/19 with less big saves+more errors. Is it related to Mannus leaving and him being undisputed number one? Or even his influence in training? 

 

[Radford]

You can make excuses but the stats are there and they provide a good baseline. Without going totally Billy Beane, just find a goalkeeper who saves x% of shots, style doesn't matter. 

Doesn't matter if he saves the ball like Chad Bradford pitches, just get the numbers.

[RandomGuy.]

14 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

That’s the real issue at the end - he doesn’t make many “big” saves these days and I think he did that far more often when he first came in. You can forgive not saving the long range efforts that go right into the corner if he makes match winning saves. It doesn’t happen often and it’s probably exacerbated by the fact our finishing at the other end is not brilliant. As such you get those games that finish 1-1 with an xG score of Saints 2.4 Away team 0.7...

Its wild when you compare him to Alnwick...

Season figures suggest Clark should've conceded 9/10 less, instead he conceded 2 more.

Where would we have been if we had Alnwick, he had performed similarly, and we were 14 goals better off...

Edited April 24, 2021 by RandomGuy.

[Jamie_B]

20 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its wild when you compare him to Alnwick...

Season figures suggest Clark should've conceded 9/10 less, instead he conceded 2 more.

Where would we have been if we had Alnwick, he had performed similarly, and we were 14 goals better off...

It’s kind of wild that in a year where we’ve won a cup and are top six (with potential to qualify for Europe) that we have a couple of glaring areas where we could have vastly improved our position. Forget being 14 better off, if we’d conceded half a dozen fewer goals and scored even three or four more at the right points we could quite easily be fighting Aberdeen and Hibs for third/fourth.

Also Alnwick is an extremely good goalkeeper and it’s a real shame he’s at a joke outfit like St Mirren instead of plying his trade in the top six with a good team.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Jamie_Beatson

[Widge]

21 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its wild when you compare him to Alnwick...

Season figures suggest Clark should've conceded 9/10 less, instead he conceded 2 more.

Where would we have been if we had Alnwick, he had performed similarly, and we were 14 goals better off...

That’s the point I was making in the match thread. Whilst Clark hasn’t made a howler for Rangers goal, if Alnwick was in goals it’d have been saved. Clark is too slow at getting down and doesn’t move his feet enough to properly spring to the side, he’s always struggled for this. I like Zander and he’s got some redeeming qualities and previous to his name. However, that’s all gone and he’s got nothing left in the bank protecting him from the stats that are written down on paper. I don’t want rid of him, but if we can bring in better or similar to force both keepers to up their game then it’s a no brainier. If for example, a Liam Kelly became available, we’d have to jump at that chance, Zander or no Zander it’s about improving the team. 

[PauloPerth]

9 hours ago, tree house tam said:

Aye so he's been a good servant to Saints and we shouldn't call him out for being statistically the WORST keeper in the league? He gets paid very very well in his chosen career Paulo, he deserves to be called out, along with the goalkeeping coaching staff when standards slip to the complete shambles that they are. As others have said it's a bloody miracle we are in the top half with someone  as statistically bad as Clark in goals.

If we were say 10 less goals conceded, which is probably a fair amount considering the relative stats between keepers. That could be 5-10 points worth in the league, Europe home and hosed with at least another 80 grand in prize money. That's the difference between a good season and a great season, we should always strive for the best Paulo or there isn't any point in trying at all.

I've made the point in my post Tam, that we need another keeper to challenge Zander/ replace him for when he's not performing.  I agree with what you say, but there's a difference saying someone needs dropped and folk making a fool of him with the clown shoes chat.  He's still one of our players, and looking at ways to blame him for every single goal an opponent scores against us serves little purpose other than to undermine him.  Agree with the point you and Dick have made about the gk coaching as well, it needs seriously looked at.

He has, and will probably continue to make, real errors where he can justifiably be blamed without attributing all the other ones to him as well. That goal the other night was a mistake by Rooney, and putting it on Clark is mental.

Statistically the worst keeper in the league is a very debatable claim.  Because for me the only certain statistic is goals conceded.  The other stats might involve a lot of work and study, but ultimately they're still just opinion.  Without looking in depth, it appears from those stats that  Connor Hazard has been better than Allan McGregor this season..

 

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

Statistically the worst keeper in the league is a very debatable claim.  Because for me the only certain statistic is goals conceded.  The other stats might involve a lot of work and study, but ultimately they're still just opinion.  Without looking in depth, it appears from those stats that  Connor Hazard has been better than Allan McGregor this season..

 

Hazard hasn't played enough to be counted, really.

800 minutes is a sensible cut off in a 38 game season for "variance" to settle down.

Looking at goals conceded, and claiming save % isn't factual, is just a bizarre stance which seems likely based on your reluctance to have an interest in any stats. There's a middle ground.

[PauloPerth]

10 hours ago, Radford said:

Personally, I feel I try really hard to not subscribe to that. I would make a joke about giving Clark more clean slates than he has sheets but the irony is he actually keeps quite a few. And that is why the defence get little stick, because they prove themselves over and over again in their protection of him. Maybe that works against Clark as he doesn't get an opportunity to showcase his ability, regularly only facing a handful of shots on target per game.

I'm wary of what you say about players (and hate to think of him or his family reading any criticism) but even if stuff can sometimes be laced with (poor) humour as in the clownshoes jibes it's always just an honest assessment. 

If I thought saying nothing about Zander Clark would improve things, I'd do that but really unfortunately I think the opposite is the case and only more dissenting voices are likely to remedy the situation. 

Wasn't at anyone in particular Radford, it just seems to be the go-to opinion now after every game.  I think in the rangers 0-3 at home and the Dundee away match he had howlers, and his performances deserved a fair bit of stick.  I don't think they're typical of his performances though.

 Currently I think he's an average Premiership keeper.  We could do better, but it could also be worse.  If he really was as bad is being made out, there's no way we'd have as many clean sheets as we do, regardless of the defence having a great 4 months since Xmas.

Zander was at his best when he was battling with Mannus for the no.1 jersey.  There's no doubt we need to bring someone else in so he needs to up his game to keep his place.  He's the best we have currently though.

 

[PauloPerth]

20 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Hazard hasn't played enough to be counted, really.

800 minutes is a sensible cut off in a 38 game season for "variance" to settle down.

Looking at goals conceded, and claiming save % isn't factual, is just a bizarre stance which seems likely based on your reluctance to have an interest in any stats. There's a middle ground.

Not the case. Stats have their place.  There is of course merit in save percentage.  My point is there are still variables in there.  Possibly a keeper has really good awareness and snuffs out danger before the opponent get a shot, his good positioning might stop a player from shooting until they work the perfect opening, thus lowering his save percentage.

You're throwing it at me that I'm discounting save percentage when you're discounting goals conceded and clean sheets as completely down to defending and nothing to do with the keeper.

I would say a keeper at Accies or Motherwell, where they concede quite a few chances, is highly likely to have a better percentage than Clark because they can get their eye in and get plenty of practice during the game, whereas Clark has to spectate for a lot of the match and only sporadically be called into action.  Long periods of activity then producing wonder-saves are what the very top keepers do so well.

I also think JB has a point:

10 hours ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

The only thing I’d say about that stat is that its notable how much fewer shots on target Clark has faced this season than other keepers who are first pick. That’s obviously down to the way we defend which forces teams to take a lot of wayward long range efforts against us.

On the flip side, I have felt that quite often when we *do* allow chances inside the box they tend to often be extremely good chances. Eg rebounds that fall right to the feet of a striker (O’Hara’s goal at Mcdiarmid for Motherwell, Hayes at Aberdeen) or otherwise extremely high percentage chances. That often feels like a function of how we play - ie if you do get behind our defence you are rewarded with a good chance. That’s the opposite of a lot of what we did earlier in the season (loads of headers under pressure from an infinite number of crosses).

Thats why we hear a lot of “a better keeper would have saved that” about Clark. 

 

[tree house tam]

Strikers and goalkeepers. That's the priority for me.