GWT: EPL - Matchweek 27

[koyvoo]

I’m showing this stuff to some people at work.

No one believes this is real life, but it is. Lol.

 

[S E P H]

Aren't the asterisk police the same ones wanting a title to be awarded to them via point deduction?

You can just call me out since you're referring to me. No, not at all. Man City fair and square won those titles. My complaint is that they should have been deducted like 4-5 seasons already, including those years. There is no freakin' way the investigation should have been left to the end of 2024-25 and currently still on going.

 

[Evilo]

So when someone says the EPL is stronger because of better xG, doesn't that mean that EPL teams are simply weaker defensively? Just asking.

 

[S E P H]

So when someone says the EPL is stronger because of better xG, doesn't that mean that EPL teams are simply weaker defensively? Just asking.

Thank you!!!

 

[Savant]

So when someone says the EPL is stronger because of better xG, doesn't that mean that EPL teams are simply weaker defensively? Just asking.

Is this for me? I will send you a link. The quoted is not what I am trying to say.

I am talking about positive xG difference (GD), not total xG

 

[Evilo]

I read the article.
But the guy totally ignores the argument that positive xG means more NEGATIVE xG for other teams. That doesn't always mean that the league is stronger. It could be also that it's more offense oriented and/or weaker defensively.
As for the european argument, it's also very very arguable.
For instance, on paper, Liverpool had an awfully tough schedule.
In reality, they faced a very weak Milan team (already out), a weak Bologna team, a particularly weak Leipzig team, a good but not as good as last year Bayer (tied Brest), a weak Real Madrid (lost to Lille), a weak Girona team, barely beat Lille with a man up and lost with their B squad at PSV (and as such tricking the CL standings for other teams).
It's a great achievement to finish 1st, but on paper, Pool was supposed to beat all those teams. They were favourites in every game.
Liverpool has been fantastic and are clear favourites against the baby PSG team. Probably IMO the best two teams in Europe as of today.
But right now Arsenal are hardly a superpower, City is very average, Chelsea are on/off, Spurs are crap, etc... Heck, a team with good coaching and average player is top 3. That does say a lot about the strength of the league. Much more than xG who's a glass half empty/half full stat.
Because for every xG you gain, someone loses it.

 

[Live in the Now]

I’m showing this stuff to some people at work.

No one believes this is real life, but it is. Lol.

Yes you are supposed to feel bad about your team winning because of some dumbass argument and crying about how often players get hurt or whatever

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I mean, given that goal difference by nature requires equilibrium league-wide, if 13/20 teams have a positive goal difference (expected or otherwise) then that simply means that the bottom of the league is way more dire than the rest of it and is absorbing all the negative. It tells nothing of the relative levels of quality elsewhere in the table.

 

[Evilo]

Every year we hear about the supposed strength or weakness of the EPL. I have no idea how to come up with any stat that can help judge that.
The eye test is a reasonable one but obviously arguable.
Any other measurable stick is not a good argument.

There's *some* merit to European results but even then, draws can change a lot of things on who goes far or not. As well as the number of teams playing. And the financial power to keep your best players from the year prior (see Girona).

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

A bunch of Ben Wyatt’s

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Every year we hear about the supposed strength or weakness of the EPL. I have no idea how to come up with any stat that can help judge that.
The eye test is a reasonable one but obviously arguable.
Any other measurable stick is not a good argument.

There's *some* merit to European results but even then, draws can change a lot of things on who goes far or not. As well as the number of teams playing. And the financial power to keep your best players from the year prior (see Girona).

And most stats which people attempt to instrumentalize are circular, because they are in some way or another zero sum within the closed system of the league! They tell you about internal parity, they don't tell you about the level at which that parity is located.

European results are a tough stand-in, not solely because of draws (which I think are generally an over-stated part of the story - look at the draws which recent UCL winners have gotten), but because there's seldom a major correlation between the best domestic sides and the best continental ones. And, of course, they only really tell us about the top sides (who then, I suppose, can be used as a proxy by which to understand the remainder of a league). It can be useful (although limited, as in the case of teams with limited resources who suffer domestically as a direct result of European commitments) to use the European results of midtable sides who squeak in to get a sense of things. Again, has problems, but illustrates something.

Player ratings and pedigree can be helpful. Many advanced stats are not zero-sum (i.e., not every gain for an attacker must necessarily come as a deduction for a defender) and so a game of higher quality will yield better stats than a worse one. And it can be softly illustrative (again, with limits) to look at NT caps and standing down the table in a league - Wolves with their 3 Brazil internationals, for instance.

All this to say:

1. I think it is plainly true that the top reaches of the PL are worse now than they've been in a few years, and the lower point totals are not solely attributable to a stronger midtable which is creating parity stealing points from the traditional top sides. Partially attributable to that, sure, but that's only one piece of it.

2. The upper-mid-table has definitely gotten a lot stronger, but with the residual inconsistency and chaos that accompanies being a midtable side. Similar to Leicester and West Ham in the late-teens, early-twenties, or Southampton in the mid-teens - but more teams are at that level. It's easy to point to increased financial strength, but honestly I think the bigger variable is that the standard of coaching in the upper midtable has gone way way way up. That section of the league has serious serious parity.

3. The overall quality of the league is slightly better if you were to average it out versus five or ten years ago, I think, but it's distributed differently. Hard thing to statistically quantify, that's a vibecheck sorta thing.

 

[Jussi]

 

[The Abusement Park]

There was no malicious intent behind it. He was trying to poke the ball but mistimed by a fraction.

Rescind the red card in that case!

 

[Jack Straw]

So when someone says the EPL is stronger because of better xG, doesn't that mean that EPL teams are simply weaker defensively? Just asking.

 

[BrokenFace]

If you didn't know what the table looked like, you could probably tell that the winner was pretty much decided this match week just based on the amount of times the word asterisk has been used in this thread.

 

[luiginb]

Best thing on Twitter by far. Also I got SO much pleasure from Morsy's own goal, the homophobe (and the reason I was banned for 2 months on here haha)

 

[Savant]

I mean, given that goal difference by nature requires equilibrium league-wide, if 13/20 teams have a positive goal difference (expected or otherwise) then that simply means that the bottom of the league is way more dire than the rest of it and is absorbing all the negative. It tells nothing of the relative levels of quality elsewhere in the table.

13 out of 20 is about 2/3 of the league though. I think the 3 relegation teams are atrocious, but also look at Wolverhampton who is in 17th but will have multiple players on the Brazil national team. I think that speaks pretty well for the quality of 17 teams in this league. Heck, Everton is 16th has taken points off of all the teams that were in UCL. 14 and 15 are West Ham and Man Utd, both of which certainly have a ton of talent as well

 

[Savant]

I read the article.
But the guy totally ignores the argument that positive xG means more NEGATIVE xG for other teams. That doesn't always mean that the league is stronger. It could be also that it's more offense oriented and/or weaker defensively.

I also told you I wasn't a fan of his writing

As for the european argument, it's also very very arguable.
For instance, on paper, Liverpool had an awfully tough schedule.
In reality, they faced a very weak Milan team (already out), a weak Bologna team, a particularly weak Leipzig team, a good but not as good as last year Bayer (tied Brest), a weak Real Madrid (lost to Lille), a weak Girona team, barely beat Lille with a man up and lost with their B squad at PSV (and as such tricking the CL standings for other teams).
It's a great achievement to finish 1st, but on paper, Pool was supposed to beat all those teams. They were favourites in every game.
Liverpool has been fantastic and are clear favourites against the baby PSG team. Probably IMO the best two teams in Europe as of today.

I think most of this is pretty fair.

But right now Arsenal are hardly a superpower, City is very average, Chelsea are on/off, Spurs are crap, etc... Heck, a team with good coaching and average player is top 3. That does say a lot about the strength of the league. Much more than xG who's a glass half empty/half full stat.
Because for every xG you gain, someone loses it.

I just think it depends how you look at it. League is tough if you are one of the top two teams and you need to go over 90 points to win, and yeah I think the league is tough when talent is spread out across the whole of a table; which it certainly is. Having 2/3 of the league with a positive xG Difference just speaks that more teams have a chance to take points of each other and I believe that's clearly what has happened

 

[Evilo]

I also told you I wasn't a fan of his writing

I think most of this is pretty fair.

I just think it depends how you look at it. League is tough if you are one of the top two teams and you need to go over 90 points to win, and yeah I think the league is tough when talent is spread out across the whole of a table; which it certainly is. Having 2/3 of the league with a positive xG Difference just speaks that more teams have a chance to take points of each other and I believe that's clearly what has happened

I disagree with the notion that 90 points means it's hard.
It can also mean your league sucks. Except for 2 teams that steamroll everyone.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

I disagree with the notion that 90 points means it's hard.
It can also mean your league sucks. Except for 2 teams that steamroll everyone.

Only takes 90 points because they play 4 more games than everyone else.

 

[VEGASKING]

I'd say the top 7 of last season was probably the consensus picks to finish in those spots again this season. Of them only Liverpool is doing better than expected. Chelsea and Newcastle around the same as last year and Arsenal, City, Villa and Spurs are well worse. Mid table teams are doing just about the same as they did last year. The bottom 5 teams are atrocious and propping up the GD of everyone else. There is no objective way to try to claim the league as a whole is better this year than last. Nor should any Liverpool fan care even if it was a serious post, which it wasn't.

 

[Savant]

I disagree with the notion that 90 points means it's hard.
It can also mean your league sucks. Except for 2 teams that steamroll everyone.

For sure it can. But if two teams are needing to go over 90, it is extremely difficult for those two

 

[Jussi]

Did you feel pride, @Evilo?