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.
by Martin Shaw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:33 pm
"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
-
Martin Shaw
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 28972
- Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:20 pm
- Location: West London
by Martin Shaw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:45 pm
detailed report now on
"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
-
Martin Shaw
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 28972
- Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:20 pm
- Location: West London
by halifaxstag » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:31 pm
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
- First Team
-
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:18 pm
- Location: Northowram, Halifax
by Martin Shaw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:44 pm
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: 28972
- Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:20 pm
- Location: West London
by halifaxstag » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:53 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
- First Team
-
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:18 pm
- Location: Northowram, Halifax
by Martin Shaw » Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:15 pm
"Four points clear as Lincoln are McCaffreyised", CHAD headline, April 1975
-
Martin Shaw
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 28972
- Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:20 pm
- Location: West London
by Foresttownstag » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:44 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.
-
Foresttownstag
- Manager
-
- Posts: 3715
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:47 am
- Location: Forest Town
by part time pete » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:41 pm
Those accustomed to privilege may feel that equality is oppression.
-
part time pete
- Prediction League Manager
-
- Posts: 10247
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:39 pm
by MTFCMusings » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:02 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
-
- Posts: 13581
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:16 pm
by halifaxstag » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:24 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
- First Team
-
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:18 pm
- Location: Northowram, Halifax
by The One » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:38 pm
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
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:07 pm
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bradders, Chris M, groundhoppingstag, Leigh5t, MansfieldMick, Martin Shaw, mattstag14, richardstag, robda1st, Scothie the Stag and 141 guests