Arsenal 1-0 Chelsea Player Ratings and Match Reaction

[HCZ_Reborn]

Raya 6 - Didn’t have much to do and made a bit of a pig’s ear out of the only real time he was called upon


Timber 8 - Made Cucurella look like a clown (granted that doesn’t take much)


Saliba 7 - Solid and largely untroubled


Gabriel 7 - Gave Neto nothing


Lewis-Skelly 7 - Solid, showed positional discipline


Partey 7 - Didn’t have much to do defensively, played a couple of good balls forward


Rice 7.5 - Tried to make things happen, good work rate


Odegaard 7 - Probably should have done better when through on goal but laid chances on for others


Martinelli 7 - Still looks raw but he did cause trouble with his pace


Trossard 5 - In his trying too hard phase again, needs to ballooning his shots


Merino 7.5 - Probably didn’t intend to score with his flicked header, but very good control and shot that needed a good save from Sanchez


Subs

Nwaneri 7 - Should have started

Tierney N/A - Game was dead when he came on



This was Ipswich without the stodginess, an XG of 0.75 shows that we really didn’t do all that much going forwards. I don’t think it’s a case of being too conservative (the coach is, but I don’t think the players were) but just still very much lacking confidence in front of goal. Timber probably the best player on the pitch, and frankly I think he’s very much a contender for player of the season for us. Not because he’s been brilliant but he’s been consistently decent (which rather sums up this unspectacular season)

This game rather sums up the season, flickering embers…a season that’s never really got going in order for it to fall apart.

With the exception of a second choice keeper, any money that’s spent other than on creative and attacking areas will be money wasted.

[Letters]

This was Ipswich without the stodginess, an XG of 0.75 shows that we really didn’t do all that much going forwards.
I have no idea how they calculate that (meaningless in my opinion) stat.
From the highlights it looked like we had a fair number of decent chances or half chances.

[Mac76]

I have no idea how they calculate that (meaningless in my opinion) stat.
From the highlights it looked like we had a fair number of decent chances or half chances.

A lot of football stats are quite misleading, it's like the 'completed passes' thing, if a player has a high rate, it looks good but if all they're doing is passing sideways to someone a few feet away and receiving it back, it achieves nothing

[HCZ_Reborn]

I have no idea how they calculate that (meaningless in my opinion) stat.
From the highlights it looked like we had a fair number of decent chances or half chances.

XG is determined by looking at chances created, so angle of pass or shot taken, distance from goal etc and then cross referenced against the historical likelihood of that kind of play leading to a goal. It’s only a rough guide but it’s actually far more context dependent than the silly comparison made to pass completed stats.

So to take that game against Chelsea for example, the XG calculation was based on whether it’s thought likely that the type of chances we had would lead to goals. The actual goal we scored wasn’t intended for the back of the net, and actually when you look at the chances we created a lot of the time we took far too long to set ourselves and the shot was blocked.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Of course I’m not saying XG is always a reliable indicator. Our XG for the City game was 1.6 or something like that, this is largely saying that three of the five goals we scored came from shots that actually on average you wouldn’t expect to score from. Partey and Nwaneri shot from outside the box, and as we all know shots from outside the box far more often go high or wide than they go in the net, and Havertz scored from an awkward angle. So this is actually more indicative of the fact that we scored goals that ordinarily would be hard to pull off

Really it’s a case of how you want to read it, losing 1-0 and having an XG of 3 is no better than losing 1-0 and having an XG of 0.3. It’s just the problem you have is different, one you are not taking what would be considered good chances to score, the other you are not creating what would be considered good chances to score

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

I think XG on the whole is usually a reliable stat, however I am shocked to see that XG we had yesterday was below 1. Also the XG suggests that with our chances we were twice as likely to score than Chelsea yesterday, but I would have put it at 3 times more likely, especially after the first 30 mins of the 1st half.

I do agree Merino's goal definitely wouldn't have moved the XG by much because that was really difficult to pull off. Kudos to him again (whether he meant it or not).

[HCZ_Reborn]

I’d love to see a game where the XG was 4 or 5 and that team didn’t score once, either the keeper has pulled off a couple of worldies or the team is full of Ronnie Rosenthals

PSG’s XG over the two legs with Liverpool was 4.34 (most of that coming from the first leg im guessing)

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

xG always seems to be a reliable stat over longer timescales e.g. when teams or players are on in unbelievable form and massively out-performing their xG they tend to regress to the mean and drop back at some point, or alternatively if a team isn't performing but their xG is very good, they tend to reocver the results more quickly (or players start scoring etc).

On an individual game level it becomes a bit more finicky, as said abohas been said above.

Obviously then it's whether you "believe" in stats or not, but it's hardly a new concept. And it's only really taking shots vs shots on target one step further.

[HCZ_Reborn]

xG always seems to be a reliable stat over longer timescales e.g. when teams or players are on in unbelievable form and massively out-performing their xG they tend to regress to the mean and drop back at some point, or alternatively if a team isn't performing but their xG is very good, they tend to reocver the results more quickly (or players start scoring etc).

On an individual game level it becomes a bit more finicky, as said abohas been said above.

Obviously then it's whether you "believe" in stats or not, but it's hardly a new concept. And it's only really taking shots vs shots on target one step further.


Yeah I think that’s all probably true

[Letters]

Obviously then it's whether you "believe" in stats or not, but it's hardly a new concept. And it's only really taking shots vs shots on target one step further.
Stats are useful in general, but they're not the be all and end all.
xG seems a bit simplistic if they're only considering shots. Just generally from the highlights we looked a lot more dangerous than Chelsea on Sunday.
There was one ball across the box which would have been a tap in, the Chelsea player just got there first but there are fine lines in football - things like that wouldn't be considered but it was us getting in to a dangerous position. Keep doing that and you'll probably score.

Having seen the goal again, not particularly convinced he meant it.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Stats are useful in general, but they're not the be all and end all.
xG seems a bit simplistic if they're only considering shots. Just generally from the highlights we looked a lot more dangerous than Chelsea on Sunday.
There was one ball across the box which would have been a tap in, the Chelsea player just got there first but there are fine lines in football - things like that wouldn't be considered but it was us getting in to a dangerous position. Keep doing that and you'll probably score.

Having seen the goal again, not particularly convinced he meant it.

Indeed, one can use them as a general guide but it doesn't give you the full picture compared to you know... watching the game.


things like that wouldn't be considered but it was us getting in to a dangerous position. Keep doing that and you'll probably score
Bet there's a stat for that :ninja:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Stats are useful in general, but they're not the be all and end all.
xG seems a bit simplistic if they're only considering shots. Just generally from the highlights we looked a lot more dangerous than Chelsea on Sunday.
There was one ball across the box which would have been a tap in, the Chelsea player just got there first but there are fine lines in football - things like that wouldn't be considered but it was us getting in to a dangerous position. Keep doing that and you'll probably score.

Having seen the goal again, not particularly convinced he meant it.

I don’t think it’s just shots that are considered but the types of passes that would lead to shots that would lead to goals, maybe it would look back on a pass like that and look at the instances of players reading the pass well enough to get on the end of it

I’m not saying Chelsea were especially defensive (they weren’t very good at it even if they tried to be) but a lot of the shots we did have where blocked, If I get time I will have to look at the stats for shots blocked this season.


Edit - I did look and we are 5th for having shots blocked behind Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City and Bournemouth

[Mac76]

Having seen the goal again, not particularly convinced he meant it.

Well if not, what was he trying to do? At worst, he directed the header toward the back post in the hope it was either headed in (although in the event no-one was really there) or it went in, so in that sense you could argue it was intended

[Letters]

Well if not, what was he trying to do?
Flick it on, like in the old Bould/Adams days.
Fair play if he meant it, I'm just not sure he did.

[Letters]

Indeed, one can use them as a general guide but it doesn't give you the full picture compared to you know... watching the game.
Pff. Who has time for that?
I'm just raising an eyebrow that our xG was less than 1. It almost implies we were lucky to score a goal.
Just from the highlights it looked like we were clearly the more dangerous team and but for some decent defending and goalkeeping it could have been more convincing.
Which implies xG isn't that good a reflection of the game.

EDIT: And we arguably should have had a penalty. Personally I think it would have been a bullshit penalty, but it's one of those you see given these days.

[Mac76]

Flick it on, like in the old Bould/Adams days.
Fair play if he meant it, I'm just not sure he did.

Flick it on to do what though - go out of play on the far side??

Like I say he would have been hoping to either score or for it to be headed in, so you could say he at least 50% 'meant it'

[HCZ_Reborn]

Its not like anyone is saying it’s a complete fluke, I’m just saying (as a few others are) that the intent seems to be to find someone to head it in at the far post rather than it go in directly. It’s a good flicked header and ironically it could have been one of those that if someone gets a head on it either cannons off the crossbar or hits a Chelsea player or something

[Mac76]

Flick it on to do what though - go out of play on the far side??

Like I say he would have been hoping to either score or for it to be headed in, so you could say he at least 50% 'meant it'

.....................

[HCZ_Reborn]

.....................

What’s your point? You are saying he either intended to score or provide an assist. I can only speak for myself but im saying it’s more likely he was trying to provide an assist, and this is what is meant (and what I believe others mean) by saying I’m not sure he meant it (as in meant to find the net directly himself)

Hard to believe as it might be, not every interaction I have with you or anyone else is intended to be an argument or refutation. Ultimately only Merino will know what he intended to do anyway

[Mac76]

I have a general issue with people casting doubt on players' intention with certain goals simply because the goal was unlikely or difficult (the 'was it a cross or a shot' argument for example) - anyone who's ever kicked a football anywhere will know we all try to do things that are unlikely but we give it a go, professional footballers will no doubt mess about in training and try different things, he didn't look surprised when it went in and for me his intention would have been (let's say it again shall we) either it goes in or someone might be there to head it

[Letters]

Flick it on to do what though
Bould/Adams.

[Letters]

anyone who's ever kicked a football anywhere will know we all try to do things that are unlikely but we give it a go
We also know that sometimes you mean to cross the ball and it can fly in. Obviously you take it, but it isn't quite what you meant.
Honestly, I don't know if he meant it. Only he does. But the idea that he was just trying to flick it on to the far post for someone to nod in is not some fantastical flight of fancy.

EDIT: No-one is claiming he was just standing there and it hit him.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I have a general issue with people casting doubt on players' intention with certain goals simply because the goal was unlikely or difficult (the 'was it a cross or a shot' argument for example) - anyone who's ever kicked a football anywhere will know we all try to do things that are unlikely but we give it a go, professional footballers will no doubt mess about in training and try different things, he didn't look surprised when it went in and for me his intention would have been (let's say it again shall we) either it goes in or someone might be there to head it

Ok but that’s kind of a you problem. I don’t actually care whether he intended it or not, I’m just making an observation based on what I saw. Which as much as I don’t rate Merino (although I don’t criticise him up front because he’s not a striker yet he’s doing his best in an unlikely role) suggesting he was looking to provide an assist is not a criticism, he made good contact with the ball. Plus I don’t really care if it comes off a player’s backside as long as it counts (arse wasn’t in an offside position)

[KSE Comedy Club]

An absolute fucking bore fest.

I've heard the comment 'we didn't get out of second gear' - well we fucking well should have!

One of the biggest problems in the last couple of seasons I have had with this team, is that they are not ruthless enough when they should be. Only doing 'just enough' to get the three points, etc.
We should have scored at least another goal to cement the victory IMO.

It's also required to try and change the mentality of this makeshift forward line, that passing the ball endlessly from left to right 85 times a game with no end product is not good enough.

2/10 for the whole team. Chelsea were non existent so I'm not giving them a pass for having an easy time of it.

But we got the 3 points I suppose, that gives them a boost.

3/10 for winning one of the easiest games we've had against the chavs

[Letters]

We should have scored at least another goal to cement the victory IMO.
Wow! I bet they'd never have thought of that!
I only saw the highlights but it didn't look like we sat back and had a "what we have, we hold". We had a few other pretty good chances to score and their 'keeper made a couple of decent saves.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the attitude of the team and we have been overly cautious in some games. I'm not sure that was one though.

[KSE Comedy Club]

Wow! I bet they'd never have thought of that!
I only saw the highlights but it didn't look like we sat back and had a "what we have, we hold". We had a few other pretty good chances to score and their 'keeper made a couple of decent saves.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the attitude of the team and we have been overly cautious in some games. I'm not sure that was one though.

Oh it definitely was like that - I watched the whole game. The second half was especially boring and we really didn't try (we didn't have to) but again that is the attitude I'm not keen on.

[Mac76]

Oh it definitely was like that - I watched the whole game. The second half was especially boring and we really didn't try (we didn't have to) but again that is the attitude I'm not keen on.

Tbh normally I'm very uncomfortable when we're just 1-0 up, but got to say Chelsea didn't make me nervous at all

I'm not sure I buy that we weren't trying though, we just didn't take silly risks