Anguissa - Worst signing in history?

[Statto]

Personally think we are a good 3-4 places too high in that list of current squad values and I suspect that's because one of the factors is the most recent transfer fee paid. I'd be interested to know, for example, how much Anguissa's perceived value went up purely because some English club was silly enough to pay £30m for him.

Nonetheless I do agree our players are better that our league position suggests.

Surely it's now generally accepted on here that our biggest problem wasn't the players we signed, but when we signed them (too effing late!). 

[The Rational Fan]

Personally think we are a good 3-4 places too high in that list of current squad values and I suspect that's because one of the factors is the most recent transfer fee paid. I'd be interested to know, for example, how much Anguissa's perceived value up purely because some English club was silly enough to pay £30m for him.

Nonetheless I do agree are players are better that our league position suggests.

Surely it's now generally accepted on here that our biggest problem wasn't the players we signed, but when we signed them (too effing late!).

On the 4th June 2018, Anguissa was already valued at 18 million, because other clubs such as Southampton were interested in him. After FFC bought him, his value went up to 25 million.

[The Rational Fan]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

[MJG]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.

Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?

[The Rational Fan]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.

Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?

Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.

My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have won half of the games of Huddersfield, Cardiff, Burnley and Brighton away, so probably 23-30 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.

[MJG]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.

Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?

Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.

My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have beaten Cardiff, Huddersfield and Burnley away, but probably 23-26 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.

I had us possibly 14th before the season started, so we would currently be in that group on 27 points. Just shows really the fine lines in any league.

[The Rational Fan]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.

Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?

Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.

My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have beaten Cardiff, Huddersfield and Burnley away, but probably 23-26 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.

I had us possibly 14th before the season started, so we would currently be in that group on 27 points. Just shows really the fine lines in any league.

Watford, Cardiff and Liverpool are doing 9 points better than i expected, while FFC is doing 9 points worse. I expected to a tough relegation battle between six teams for the final relegation place (with both Cardiff and Huddersfield booking their place very early in the season after losing to us at their home games).

[Sting of the North]

If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well. 

Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from.  If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?

The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.

FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.

Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.

Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.

Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.

Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?

Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.

My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have won half of the games of Huddersfield, Cardiff, Burnley and Brighton away, so probably 23-30 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.

While Mawson has a knee injury currently, and although I acknowledge that it may (doesn't have to) be indirectly related to the injury he had when he joined, it is in fact not the same injury. Thus, I believe the reasoning in that regard is flawed.

More on point though, I believe that most would agree that we are under performing relative to our perceived squad strength by at least a bit. We should definitely at least be right up in the scramble with those team about 7-10 points above us. However, that is on squad strength measured by summarizing the individual players. It is of course also very relevant to look at other aspects such as familiarity with teammates, a department in which we were lacking hugely to start the season. This is of course nothing new, as many other have pointed out that a big part of our problem comes from starting the season with a half new squad, with the added problem of most players arriving late in the window.

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

I guess my point is that I agree that it is normally a fine line between relative success and failure. When under performing like we have done this season, we would definitely have needed lady luck on our side.

[Statto]

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.

As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.

I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.   

[FulhamStu]

Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards.   BUT we have crap defenders for this league.  To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad.   We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.

[The Rational Fan]

Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards.   BUT we have crap defenders for this league.  To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad.   We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.

We started the season with TFM, Chambers, Mawson and Sessegnon all rated as Premier League Defenders, plus Ream and Bryan as two of the best Championship defenders last season both deserving of a more difficult challenge.

Outside the top six defenders were Christie, Odoi and MLM who were meant to fight for a place on the bench or if they massively improved make the first team, but they made it without improving.

[toshes mate]

Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards.   BUT we have crap defenders for this league.  To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad.   We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.

My emphasis to your post, FulhamStu, is, IMO, the key to everything about what recruitment needs to do - find team work potential at every position and every level of quality.  Is there a statistic for that other than looking at players who have contributed to team successes such as being ever present winning or unbeaten runs, promotion, trophy winning and cup runs?  The starting place was looking at the quality and contributions of all the players in the promotion squad and finding better where better was needed. 

Last seasons misfits became good fits and that was down to the players and the coaching regime. 

[Sting of the North]

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.

As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.

I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.   

I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.

To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.

Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.

[MJG]

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.

As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.

I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.   

I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.

To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.

Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.

Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.

Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?"  then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.

[Statto]

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.

As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.

I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.   

I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.

To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.

Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.

Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.

Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?"  then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.

A "form indicator" - i agree that use sounds reasonable.

For me it's a useful but limited tool, again like possession. Yes having more possession usually means you deserve to win but we know from several poor spells under Jokanovic over the years that some teams will let you have possession if they know that they can do more damage with 10% possession than you can do with 90% possession, and a lack of success in those circumstances is nothing to do with "bad luck" 

[MJG]

Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.

Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.

As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.

I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.   

I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.

To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.

Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.

Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.

Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?"  then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.

A "form indicator" - i agree that use sounds reasonable.

For me it's a useful but limited tool, again like possession. Yes having more possession usually means you deserve to win but we know from several poor spells under Jokanovic over the years that some teams will let you have possession if they know that they can do more damage with 10% possession than you can do with 90% possession, and a lack of success in those circumstances is nothing to do with "bad luck"

Possession over the long term works and can been seen time and time again, but i read (but can I find it again...no) a great article that expelined how you can have too much possession, and we fell into that with Joka especally last season early on. I did a run of stats that showed how we dropped a few possesion points and started creating more chances.

I like expected goals, but more the timelines that some stats groups produce, they give a better understanding on how a game and can ebb and flow, and who did have the better chances.

[davew]

which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!

[MJG]

which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!

you might not agree but with a going rate of ten million plus for these type of players, Rico, Chambers, Schurrle would reach in region of 25-30m for starters. You then have 22m signing from Liverpool, Babel has a value, TFM, it all adds up.

[davew]

which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).

Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!

you might not agree but with a going rate of ten million plus for these type of players, Rico, Chambers, Schurrle would reach in region of 25-30m for starters. You then have 22m signing from Liverpool, Babel has a value, TFM, it all adds up.

Being an accountant (retired) yes I can agree it adds up 30+22 = 52m, do I think they are worth 52m, obviously not!!

[fcfulham55]

Yes he is be a very large margin.