Nottingham Forest - Huddersfield Town - Play Off Final

[Ciscokid]

So we're aggressive and they're not. Bit weird but music to my ears.

[Tricky]

We have so many defensive weaknesses!

How come then, we had one of the best defences in the country?

[Sausage Roll]

Jon Moss. Has refereed Forest five times in the last decade. They didn’t lose one of the games. In the same time frame his record in charge of Huddersfield games is two wins in seven. Sorry to disappoint …

It gets better … in the whole of his career stretching back to 2005 Forest have NEVER lost with him in charge.

~ Nixon.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

All together now to the tune of Go West..

Jon Moss is a Forest fan
Jon Moss is a Forest fan…

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Poor appointment in my opinion, even Mark Clattenburg is all over it and saying that it's a very strange appointment.

[DR Forest]

Surely with var it doesn’t really matter quite so much who the ref is?
If the technology helps get BJ the protection and the free kicks he should, then we would immediately be ahead of the standard of most games we’ve seen this season.

[Mcforest]

We have so many defensive weaknesses!

How come then, we had one of the best defences in the country?

It's because the chance creation rate against us is so high in these areas. Also shows that the chance conversion rate against us and big opportunities taken rate is low. What it means is teams are not scoring the goals against us they should be with the chances they get.

We avg per game 13 shots with a conversion rate of 12% but allow an avg of 14 shots per game against us but only 1.6 of those shots are on target.
Looking at xG we should score 1.56 a game based on chances and quality of chance where as we should be conceding 2.04 however what we have conceded is 0.9 per match. What this means is the other teams have been missing rather than us being good defensively.

Other things of interest

In 52% of our games we are the first team to score
We score on avg every 57 mins
However we only score in both half’s 28% of the time.
67% of our goals come in the second half

[Mcforest]

Just for context

Huddersfield xG is 1.17 with a conversion rate of 1.38 per game
Goals against xG is 1.55 with a conversion rate of 1 per game
Avg 12 shots per game with a score rate of 12% per game
they are the first team to score in 63% of their matches
and only failed to score in 23%
They score every 65 mins with 52% of goals coming in the first half

[Tricky]

Just for context

Huddersfield xG is 1.17 with a conversion rate of 1.38 per game
Goals against xG is 1.55 with a conversion rate of 1 per game
Avg 12 shots per game with a score rate of 12% per game
they are the first team to score in 63% of their matches
and only failed to score in 23%
They score every 65 mins with 52% of goals coming in the first half

Thank you for that Mac. I rarely tend to bother with the xG thingy, mainly because it is too confusing for my little brain to comprehend.

[wassy04]

Just for context

Huddersfield xG is 1.17 with a conversion rate of 1.38 per game
Goals against xG is 1.55 with a conversion rate of 1 per game
Avg 12 shots per game with a score rate of 12% per game
they are the first team to score in 63% of their matches
and only failed to score in 23%
They score every 65 mins with 52% of goals coming in the first half

So both team are going to lose? 

Is that the case then that most times xG against is higher than xG for? As we're 3rd and 4th and both finished with net negatives.

[Mcforest]

what it means is that they should only score 1.17 goal on average a game but they score more than the chance creation and quality of chance suggests at 1.38. Also that teams who play against them don't score the chances they should.

So Fulham
Expected xg is 2.07
Actual xg is 2.3
Expected xg against 1.11
Actual xg against is 0.93

Then Say Norwich
Expected xg is 0.94
Actual 0.61
Expected xg against 1.99
Actual 2.21

So you can see top teams score more than the chances and quality of that chance suggest and lower team create less and miss more or their quality chances.

[wassy04]

what it means is that they should only score 1.17 goal on average a game but they score more  than the chance creation and quality of chance suggests at 1.38. Also that teams who play against them don't score the chances they should.

So Fulham
Expected xg is 2.07
Actual xg is 2.3
Expected xg against 1.11
Actual xg against is 0.93

Then Say Norwich
Expected xg is 0.94
Actual 0.61
Expected xg against 1.99
Actual 2.21

So you can see top teams score more than the chances and quality of that chance suggest and lower team create less and miss more or their quality chances.

So what you're saying is, outside of Fulham, the teams are the near the top are essentially the lucky ones that were more clinical and teams missed more chances on?!