{ the forum }
 
An independent supporters' website dedicated to Mansfield Town FC

Stagsnet report

Discuss all things Stags and Football League Two, and share stuff using our BBCodes.
Forum rules
Please read the Posting Rules before participating. Posting on the forums is subject to adhering to these.
Also, see the Guidelines for Posting. Moderators may sometimes tidy posts which do not follow these customs.

Stagsnet report

Postby Martin Shaw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:33 pm

"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
Martin Shaw
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby Martin Shaw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:45 pm

detailed report now on
"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
Martin Shaw
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby halifaxstag » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:31 am

It’s not very important but the fourth official showed 3 minutes of time added on at the end of the second half.
Agree with you that the referee wasn’t strong enough. Several times his assistants and he dithered about throw in decisions and he should have handled the Bishop situation better.
Which player dragged Bishop around after the Grainger foul tackle? It was this that caused his angry reaction.
halifaxstag
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:18 am

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby Martin Shaw » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:44 am

halifaxstag wrote:It’s not very important but the fourth official showed 3 minutes of time added on at the end of the second half.
Agree with you that the referee wasn’t strong enough. Several times his assistants and he dithered about throw in decisions and he should have handled the Bishop situation better.
Which player dragged Bishop around after the Grainger foul tackle? It was this that caused his angry reaction.

a Carlisle fan has pointed this out to me on twitter as well.

The 4th official put the board up while the corner was taken and I was busy commentating on that so did not see it. However the Carlisle News and Star reporter told me it was 4 minutes so I quoted that. Clearly he was wrong. I'll amend. Thanks
"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
Martin Shaw
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby halifaxstag » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:53 am

Stats

………………………………………..…………... Stags……. Cumbrians
Possession (%) ……………………………....45…………….. 55
Shots…….Total…………………………………. 8………………20
…………...On target………………………….……2……………….7
……………Blocked……………………………......2..…….…….…6
……………Off target (inc hit woodwork).4()............7()
Expected Goals…………………………………..0.9…………….2.4

Corners…………………………………………..…..6..……………..6
Offside ……………………………………………….……………….
Fouls……………………………………………....….7……………..10
Cards (Yellow/ Red)........................2/1…………….2/0
halifaxstag
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:18 am

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby Martin Shaw » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:15 pm

"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
Martin Shaw
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17937
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby Foresttownstag » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:44 am

halifaxstag wrote:Stats

………………………………………..…………... Stags……. Cumbrians
Possession (%) ……………………………....45…………….. 55
Shots…….Total…………………………………. 8………………20
…………...On target………………………….……2……………….7
……………Blocked……………………………......2..…….…….…6
……………Off target (inc hit woodwork).4()............7()
Expected Goals…………………………………..0.9…………….2.4

Corners…………………………………………..…..6..……………..6
Offside ……………………………………………….……………….
Fouls……………………………………………....….7……………..10
Cards (Yellow/ Red)........................2/1…………….2/0


How does this expected goals work? I've seen it pop up on MOTD.
User avatar
Foresttownstag
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:47 am
Location: Forest Town

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby part time pete » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:41 pm

Can we play Accrington Stanley every week.
part time pete
Prediction League Manager
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:39 pm

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby MTFCMusings » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:02 pm

Foresttownstag wrote:
halifaxstag wrote:Stats

………………………………………..…………... Stags……. Cumbrians
Possession (%) ……………………………....45…………….. 55
Shots…….Total…………………………………. 8………………20
…………...On target………………………….……2……………….7
……………Blocked……………………………......2..…….…….…6
……………Off target (inc hit woodwork).4()............7()
Expected Goals…………………………………..0.9…………….2.4

Corners…………………………………………..…..6..……………..6
Offside ……………………………………………….……………….
Fouls……………………………………………....….7……………..10
Cards (Yellow/ Red)........................2/1…………….2/0


How does this expected goals work? I've seen it pop up on MOTD.


Basically the number of goals you should have scored based on the quality of the chances created. It doesn't obviously allow for 40 yard screamers.
MTFCMusings
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:16 pm

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby halifaxstag » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm

MTFCMusings wrote:
Foresttownstag wrote:
halifaxstag wrote:Stats

………………………………………..…………... Stags……. Cumbrians
Possession (%) ……………………………....45…………….. 55
Shots…….Total…………………………………. 8………………20
…………...On target………………………….……2……………….7
……………Blocked……………………………......2..…….…….…6
……………Off target (inc hit woodwork).4()............7()
Expected Goals…………………………………..0.9…………….2.4

Corners…………………………………………..…..6..……………..6
Offside ……………………………………………….……………….
Fouls……………………………………………....….7……………..10
Cards (Yellow/ Red)........................2/1…………….2/0


How does this expected goals work? I've seen it pop up on MOTD.


Basically the number of goals you should have scored based on the quality of the chances created. It doesn't obviously allow for 40 yard screamers.

It is a bit of a crude statistic, based on previous data, at our level where only the distance and angle on goal are used. At Premier league level they take into account the positions of other players amongst other information.
On Saturday Tyler Walker’s goal was a 0.4 chance of scoring (presumably lots of these chances would be stopped by a defender/keeper on the line) and Matt Preston’s was 0.1. Our other 6 shots totalled 0.4 altogether.
halifaxstag
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:18 am

Re: Stagsnet report

Postby The One » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:38 am

halifaxstag wrote:
MTFCMusings wrote:
Foresttownstag wrote:
halifaxstag wrote:Stats

………………………………………..…………... Stags……. Cumbrians
Possession (%) ……………………………....45…………….. 55
Shots…….Total…………………………………. 8………………20
…………...On target………………………….……2……………….7
……………Blocked……………………………......2..…….…….…6
……………Off target (inc hit woodwork).4()............7()
Expected Goals…………………………………..0.9…………….2.4

Corners…………………………………………..…..6..……………..6
Offside ……………………………………………….……………….
Fouls……………………………………………....….7……………..10
Cards (Yellow/ Red)........................2/1…………….2/0


How does this expected goals work? I've seen it pop up on MOTD.


Basically the number of goals you should have scored based on the quality of the chances created. It doesn't obviously allow for 40 yard screamers.

It is a bit of a crude statistic, based on previous data, at our level where only the distance and angle on goal are used. At Premier league level they take into account the positions of other players amongst other information.
On Saturday Tyler Walker’s goal was a 0.4 chance of scoring (presumably lots of these chances would be stopped by a defender/keeper on the line) and Matt Preston’s was 0.1. Our other 6 shots totalled 0.4 altogether.


Really interesting
The One
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 10006
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:07 pm


Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Foresttownstag, iansmith, MTFCMusings, stagshead, tillydog123, yellowstagsfan and 32 guests