FC Bayern Forum

For the sake of sanity, cordiality and organization on all the other topics,
I am opening this thread for you to continue with the righteous onslaught of arguments, rational or not,
pertaining to the topic of who is the better football player, whose bodily fluids taste better etc.

I implore the mods to keep the thread as an outlet for all the similar discussions, but rightfully and strictly condemn the X vs Y banter on all the other topics.

You can change your vote at any time if you feel that the other side has more convincing arguments. (Lol)

To those who think Mueller had a bigger miss than Coutinho today...

MUTU wrote:To those who think Mueller had a bigger miss than Coutinho today...

Mueller's shot had an xG of 0.37
Coutinho's big chance had an xG of 0.48 [source]

You dont need xG for assessing chances, you only need eyes (or an eye). Ridiculous how are you holding to that xG sh*t for anything.
If football was only measured by your dear xG - football is screwed.

I repeat - a non-blind man would see that Muller had a better clear-cut chance. Coutinho's one was a running one which is harder to score, although that doesnt change the fact that he should've scored too.

Gnabry's left-foot shot at the left post is rated at 0.07 xG which is just RETARDED. He caught the keeper off guard, it was a clear shot to goal, only the post saved them. How is that a rating of 0.07 only Understat and MUTU can explain.

You simply dont put a 0.07 for that kind of chance, so yeah - Understat is shit. 0.07, wow. Somebody at Understat had a stroke, apparently.

And to top it off - Coman's attempt at 57' where the ball was blocked by a defender about 1m after it was shot (FAR AWAY from the goal) is rated 0.08 xG

A video editor should just cut the two chances side by side in a video just to compare how ridiculous that rating is.

Someone must hack the Understat website and replace it with some random "Nigerian prince legacy money" scam.

zozon, it's time for your pills again

MUTU wrote:zozon, it's time for your pills again

Can you please explain to me how Coman's "chance" is rated 0.08 xG and Gnabry's post is rated at 0.07?

Just explain please. Or please never use the Understat "stats" again. Its easy to try to "calm" me down when you dont have the answer. Just diluting the conversation.

Coutinho was invisible today. Kind of unfair to compare a player who plays 80mins with team mates who have fresh legs to someone who comes on for 10 mins, when the team is tired, and who hasn’t had match practice for 6 games.
So far, Coutinho hasn’t impressed and he should have the same pressure as Muller, where he doesn’t start if he isn’t performing.

zozon wrote:

MUTU wrote:zozon, it's time for your pills again

Can you please explain to me how Coman's "chance" is rated 0.08 xG and Gnabry's post is rated at 0.07?

Just explain please. Or please never use the Understat "stats" again. Its easy to try to "calm" me down when you dont have the answer. Just diluting the conversation.

Easy, it's because you exaggerate all the chances.

You probably thought Mueller should have scored 3 goals from his chance.

Our goal was to create the most precise method for shot quality evaluation.

For this case, we trained neural network prediction algorithms with the large dataset (>100,000 shots, over 10 parameters for each).

On this site, you will find our detailed xG statistics for the top European leagues.

But yes, go with your gut feeling by all means, after all you probably did watch over 100,000 shots.

I need a "neither of them" choice.

IsiahRashad wrote:We looked the xg ratings, now let's look the whoscored ratings so far this season.
We're going to keep the stats updated in every couple of weeks.

It is troll-level logic to compare match ratings when one gets to play a handful of minutes. It is next to impossible to get a high match rating with a few minutes of playing time. When Thomas Mueller played for 7 minutes and scored 1 goal, he got a rating of 7.07. But at "that rate" of 1 goal every 7 minutes he'd have scored 12 to 13 goals over 90 minutes, and he'd have obviously gotten a match rating of 10 (and people would talk about his match for centuries), but instead he's punished in the rating for playing a low number of minutes. That's on the coach though, not the player.

BayernCanada wrote:Coutinho was invisible today. Kind of unfair to compare a player who plays 80mins with team mates who have fresh legs to someone who comes on for 10 mins, when the team is tired, and who hasn’t had match practice for 6 games.
So far, Coutinho hasn’t impressed and he should have the same pressure as Muller, where he doesn’t start if he isn’t performing.

^This so much this. Just like Thomas gets dropped for bad performances so should the Brazilian! Same rules should apply. Coutinho was pathetic until the 50th minute and after that he did get involved but was still very average.

To be fair to both Coutinho and Müller, today’s debacle and poor showing of both the players is 100% to blame on Kovac the coach! Kovac should’ve known that Coutinho would be fatigued from all the travel and since Müller was fully rested, the latter should’ve started.

And when you make such an absurd call you better get it right because when you don’t you get a 0/10 in football management.

IsiahRashad wrote:There are players with less minutes than him, but they remain up in the standings.
It's not only the goals and assits, there are other stats, also important for the game of football, and yall know that very well.

It's not about the total minutes but about the number of minutes per appearance.

Yes there's other stats, like winning possession and aerial duels. In the latter, as per your screenshot, Mueller wins 5x more aerial duels than Coutinho, and they're not even /90 stats.