Mikel Arteta: Aston La Vista To The Title?

[AbouCuéllar]

We have further context now, with almost a full season played. Currently we are on 52.71 xPTS through 31 matches, on a 1.70 xPTS/g pace, similar to the pace the team was at when Em*ry picked it up from Wenger and brought it down to a 1.54 xPTS/g performance level, a level we have never seen anything close to under Em*ry.

In short, my statement, which started this argument, that at the very least we can say that Em*ry picked up the club and took it backwards, and Arteta has taken it forwards from where he picked it up, is evidently true because we have the facts that:

1. Em*ry picked up the club on a 1.73xPTS/g performance level and took it to a 1.54 xPTS/g level in the season following.
2. Arteta picked up a club on a 1.23 xPTS/g level that season and a 1.47 xPTS in the entirety of Em*ry's 51 game reign, and took it to a 1.54 xPTS level in the season following, and now to a 1.70 xPTS level in the season following.

Interesting @Trilly how you are a big fan of xG and quick to use it against Arteta earlier in the season yet never respond to these type of posts (nor does anyone who is an anti-Arteta, because there really is no logical response...).

But I do approve of the @Camus to Unai Em*ry comparison, haha, finally someone gets them both there.

 

[Rasmi]

You and @Tir Na Nog rushing to call Sp**s mentality monsters when they win a game:

That’s a cute picture. Elangas old man was better left back that Nuno. Joseph was such a good player

 

[grange]

Can somebody tag me when it's safe to return?

 

[Trilly]

Interesting @Trilly how you are a big fan of xG and quick to use it against Arteta earlier in the season yet never respond to these type of posts (nor does anyone who is an anti-Arteta, because there really is no logical response...).

I’m learning every season tbh. I’ve known for a while that xG isn’t perfect but I think Mikel’s Arsenal has demonstrated it’s short comings perfectly.

Our team creates a lot of half chances without creating many clear ones, whereas other top teams xG supports their big chances created numbers, ours are almost opposite. Going forwards I’ll look at xG but I’ll favour big chances created because I think the latter meshes with the eye test better.

I think underlying stats are still useful but they can lead to situations like this where underlying metrics say we are a good attacking side but it’s clear to anyone who watches football that we simply aren’t.

How does xPoints work btw not familiar with it ?

 

[Trilly]

Can somebody tag me when it's safe to return?

Think you’ve earned our respect tbh. Don’t really see anyone coming for you anywhere near as aggressively as they could be…

We’re letting Mikel do that all by himself.

 

[grange]

Don’t really see anyone coming for you anywhere near as aggressively as they could be…

We’re letting Mikel do that all by himself.

@Riou

 

[AbouCuéllar]

I’m learning every season tbh. I’ve known for a while that xG isn’t perfect but I think Mikel’s Arsenal has demonstrated it’s short comings perfectly.

Mikel's Arsenal demonstrates absolutely nothing about xG, IMO (and if anything it has us basically bang on--we're 1 and change PTS ahead of our predicted total). We're talking about a century of data (I believe you yourself said that) used to create the most predictive model we have, which is to say, the best model to analyse actual performance level (because as we know, the league table does lie), which is the only thing that should be concerning us when we are analysing a manager (as anything outside of that he has no control over), so to think that one or two years of samples of one team is telling us anything about xG, or that somehow one manager in the history of football's type of management somehow does not work or fit with the predictive use / analytic use of xG, well, it seems like a rather strange conclusion to come to, and clutching at straws to put it nicely...

What to Expect When You’re Expecting Goals​

Using past shots to predict how will teams will do in the future is good. Further modifying that to factor in what type of shots teams are taking is even better. That’s, in effect, what xG does. Notably what xG was not developed to do is accurately describe a single shot or a single game. Rather, it was designed to take lots of information, thousands and thousands of shots, synthesize it, and use that information to represent how many goals a team might reasonably be expected to score or concede given the types of shots they’ve taken and given up. This is good and useful information. There are ample studies showing how this process is better at predicting how a team will do in the future than pretty much anything else out there. It takes the old information, based purely on the volume of shots and improves it. It turns out that sometimes when a team is shooting better or worse than average it’s because on average they’re taking better or worse shots. There are two problems with xG as currently constituted. The first is that just like with a basic shot based metric teams frequently spend stretches of time doing better or worse than where the metric thinks they’ll end up. And, just like with shots, xG doesn’t offer many answers other than the (quite good) prediction that eventually that will stop. It explains part of what shots miss, but there’s still plenty of room left blank. The problem of what xG might be missing in the short term is encapsulated by how it’s used for single games. It’s important to start off by saying, that xG maps contain more information than pretty much any other form of quick glance game recap. But it’s not what it was designed for. The total goals a team score will often differ wildly from what xG predicts. Frequently this is by design. If a player misses a sitter, xG and actual goals should differ. That’s the point. The model is crediting the team for creating the chance, understanding that in the future creating those chances will lead to goals. So, there’s a way in which single game xG totals differing from the result is a direct sign that the model is working. But, there’s another reason they can differ as well. The value that an xG model assigns to any given specific shot is based on an average of past similar shots. So, it takes into account things like location, whether or not it’s a header, the kind of pass that led to the shot, etc etc, mixes them all together and spits out a value. The problem with averages is that they’re averages. Any single chance can differ significantly from that average. Because we know that xG works, and is quite predictive, we know that over the long run the ways those individual shots differentiate from average more or less cancel each other out. But, during a single game, that definitely doesn’t happen. A team with a high xG total but no goals might have missed a bunch of good chances, or the chances they had might have been harder than the model predicts. Single game xG totals don’t differentiate between the two. Luckily StatsBomb can help with that problem. To find out how, stay tuned for part two.

The Dual Life of Expected Goals (Part 1) - We are Data Champions | StatsBomb

%

statsbomb.com

Our team creates a lot of half chances without creating many clear ones, whereas other top teams xG supports their big chances created numbers, ours are almost opposite. Going forwards I’ll look at xG but I’ll favour big chances created because I think the latter meshes with the eye test better.

Eh? This is a pretty nonsensical sentence and I think you will see its holes and major issues given you are an intelligent poster, if you read it again. Anyways, what I've quoted above responds to all of that--that's why xG is the best and most predictive model we have, because it's not just arbitrarily talking about chances that pass above a certain threshold of goal probability (if the model used for big chances you're referring to even gets that deep, in terms of analysis), it's talking about all the chances in a game, evaluating just how good half-chances are and how many of them are, and giving us the most predictive model we have found in football, where teams simply don't outplay their xG over large samples because that's how good models work, the bigger the sample the more the model and the reality become closer and closer (which is where the predictiveness comes from of course: we know that in a significant enough sample if a team is greatly outperforming its xG / xPTS it's not sustainable and it's betraying a performance level not in accordance with the pts level).

Unless you can show me some kind of data that suggests that looking at just big chances created (of course for this statistic to be of any use whatsoever it would have to include big chances allowed, too...but I digress, the reality is that it's quite clearly a statistic that is giving us far less information and is far less descriptive and far less predictive than xG) is more predictive over time than xG, then you can see why I say that a poster as intelligent as yourself should read this over and see the real flaw in his reasoning here...

How does xPoints work btw not familiar with it ?

xPTS is just an algorithm derived from xG, it spits out the expected pts total based on xG, using win probabilities from the average of all the years of statistics spit into the model. So if the xG suggests a win probability of 70% draw probably of 13% bla bla you get something like 2.21 xPTS, and so on. It's really just a synonym of xG, an algorithm taken from xG-xGA, which is why I sometimes use the two things interchangeably (xG and xPTS), because we're just talking simply about the best underlying performance metric we have to judge the actual performance level of a team (and obviously I am not so daft as to just use xG without considering xGA, so it follows when I talk about point tallies referring to them as xG or the xG table that I am referring to the xPTS table, which is using of course the xG metric / model).

 

[Wozman85]

Haven't posted in here for a while, but i'm a nobody anyway so who cares.

We're poo, Lacazette is poo, Arteta is the fly on top of the whole steaming mess

 

[Joestlaachmkr]

I honestly expect us to lose against Chelsea. But if we take zero points against Man United as well, then i hope even the core of the Arteta fanbase realize once and for all that this guy are useless and that he should not be Arsenal boss.

 

[Trilly]

Mikel's Arsenal demonstrates absolutely nothing about xG, IMO (and if anything it has us basically bang on--we're 1 and change PTS ahead of our predicted total). We're talking about a century of data (I believe you yourself said that) used to create the most predictive model we have, which is to say, the best model to analyse actual performance level (because as we know, the league table does lie), which is the only thing that should be concerning us when we are analysing a manager (as anything outside of that he has no control over), so to think that one or two years of samples of one team is telling us anything about xG, or that somehow one manager in the history of football's type of management somehow does not work or fit with the predictive use / analytic use of xG, well, it seems like a rather strange conclusion to come to, and clutching at straws to put it nicely...

The Dual Life of Expected Goals (Part 1) - We are Data Champions | StatsBomb

%

statsbomb.com

Eh? This is a pretty nonsensical sentence and I think you will see its holes and major issues given you are an intelligent poster, if you read it again. Anyways, what I've quoted above responds to all of that--that's why xG is the best and most predictive model we have, because it's not just arbitrarily talking about chances that pass above a certain threshold of goal probability (if the model used for big chances you're referring to even gets that deep, in terms of analysis), it's talking about all the chances in a game, evaluating just how good half-chances are and how many of them are, and giving us the most predictive model we have found in football, where teams simply don't outplay their xG over large samples because that's how good models work, the bigger the sample the more the model and the reality become closer and closer (which is where the predictiveness comes from of course: we know that in a significant enough sample if a team is greatly outperforming its xG / xPTS it's not sustainable and it's betraying a performance level not in accordance with the pts level).

Unless you can show me some kind of data that suggests that looking at just big chances created (of course for this statistic to be of any use whatsoever it would have to include big chances allowed, too...but I digress, the reality is that it's quite clearly a statistic that is giving us far less information and is far less descriptive and far less predictive than xG) is more predictive over time than xG, then you can see why I say that a poster as intelligent as yourself should read this over and see the real flaw in his reasoning here...


xPTS is just an algorithm derived from xG, it spits out the expected pts total based on xG, using win probabilities from the average of all the years of statistics spit into the model. So if the xG suggests a win probability of 70% draw probably of 13% bla bla you get something like 2.21 xPTS, and so on. It's really just a synonym of xG, though, an algorithm taken from xG-xGA.

I probably didn’t say what I meant to say correctly.

There’s just a disconnect between our xG and big chances created total. Off the top off my head a big chance is one where the player is reasonably expected to score while also having little to no defensive pressure on them.

It’s possible to create lots of small half chances that produce a healthy xG total but if your luck turns your team can miss all of those half chances. Basically if I had to choose between being top in the league for xG or top in the league for big chances I know what I’d pick.

Arteta’s Arsenal has shown that you can be top 5/6 in the league for xG while being bottom 4 for big chances created (I’ve never seen that before so that’s what I’m talking about when I say this team has shown me something). On the other hand I feel like it would be impossible for a team that’s top 4 in big chances created to be bottom 4 in the league for xG.

Underlying stats are good but I think there are some less detailed stats that ultimately trump them when it comes to assessing a teams performance.

 

[dka1]

I probably didn’t say what I meant to say correctly.

There’s just a disconnect between our xG and big chances created total. Off the top off my head a big chance is one where the player is reasonably expected to score while also having little to no defensive pressure on them.

It’s possible to create lots of small half chances that produce a healthy xG total but if your luck turns your team can miss all of those half chances. Basically if I had to choose between being top in the league for xG or top in the league for big chances I know what I’d pick.

Arteta’s Arsenal has shown that you can be top 5/6 in the league for xG while being bottom 4 for big chances created (I’ve never seen that before so that’s what I’m talking about when I say this team has shown me something). On the other hand I feel like it would be impossible for a team that’s top 4 in big chances created to be bottom 4 in the league for xG.

Underlying stats are good but I think there are some less detailed stats that ultimately trump them when it comes to assessing a teams performance.

Sorry to butt in but I actually wanted to ask @AbouCuéllar about this and I want to try and answer your question too.

From what I understand, we've got a low "big chances created" metric for this season (relative to the other teams); 34 which leaves us in 16th in the table.

My understanding of this is that we don't create good enough chances consistently enough. On the flip side we've got a high amount of shots (3rd in the league) which means that we're still able to score a reasonable amount of goals despite not creating big chances as regularly as our other top 4 competitors.

When it comes to xG I don't really view this stat as a useful way to judge the quality of chances we're creating (in isolation). In my mind it's more of a metric to measure whether we're doing better than we're supposed to be or worse.

For example in Emery's first season we greatly outscored our xG (from what I remember). What did that tell us? It meant that the position we finished in was unsustainable in the long term (unless of course Emery changed).

I've seen different xG metrics for this season. Most of them suggest that we're slightly underscoring our xG, however, FotMob (that utilises Opta from what I've read) has our xG at 55.2 which is just over 10 goals over the amount we've scored.

If we go by that metric then you might say that you can expect us to score more goals than we have been doing (over the long term if all things remain the same), but it doesn't tell us if the quality of the chances are good, just that we should be scoring more than we are.

 

[Baki]

To all the people that said we can't compete with Liverpool because of our resources. Klopp spent $280M to build his squad and Arteta has already spent $287M. A world class coach and DOF can get us competing for titles again.

Head-to-Head Comparison (Klopp vs Arteta first 2.5 seasons)

Klopp	Arteta
8th (60pts) [Half Season]	8th (56pts) [Half Season]
4th (76 pts)	8th (61 pts)
4th (75 pts)	??? (Currently +4pts from last season)

Can you see where our process is going wrong? Hint, it begins with A and rhymes with ArseTETA.

 

[Trilly]

Sorry to butt in but I actually wanted to ask @AbouCuéllar about this and I want to try and answer your question too.

From what I understand, we've got a low "big chances created" metric for this season (relative to the other teams); 34 which leaves us in 16th in the table.

My understanding of this is that we don't create good enough chances consistently enough. On the flip side we've got a high amount of shots (3rd in the league) which means that we're still able to score a reasonable amount of goals despite not creating big chances as regularly as our other top 4 competitors.

When it comes to xG I don't really view this stat as a useful way to judge the quality of chances we're creating (in isolation). In my mind it's more of a metric to measure whether we're doing better than we're supposed to be or worse.

For example in Emery's first season we greatly outscored our xG (from what I remember). What did that tell us? It meant that the position we finished in was unsustainable in the long term (unless of course Emery changed).

I've seen different xG metrics for this season. Most of them suggest that we're slightly underscoring our xG, however, FotMob (that utilises Opta from what I've read) has our xG at 55.2 which is just over 10 goals over the amount we've scored.

If we go by that metric then you might say that you can expect us to score more goals than we have been doing (over the long term if all things remain the same), but it doesn't tell us if the quality of the chances are good, just that we should be scoring more than we are.

So long story short we’ve got the quantity of a top side but not the quality.

As tends to be the case with Arteta you’re left wondering whether it’s a matter of time before he gets the quality side down or if he’s just an average manager and this is his limit.

I think you know where I stand. The fact we’re not 8th or something but 16th when it comes to big chances created leads me to think that it’s one of the areas where managers can demonstrate their ability irrespective of player ability.

 

[Baki]

I am fairly certain Arteta pays a PR firm to pump his presence in online communities like Reddit. It's a tactic that many companies employ. That's the only explanation for the level of delusion on r/gunners

 

[yorch44]

The world Anti-Mikel XI

Gk - @Makingtrax he gatekeeps the clubs standards, doesn’t let those sneaky Wenger potshots used to defend Mik creep in. Anything for the clean sheet.

Right back - @Sanchez11 the Sagna of Arteta haters. Keeps it simple with the attacks but will always get forward, and defensively forget about catching him on an off day. Rain, snow or shine you’ll find him battering Mikel even on the best of runs. Warrior.

CBs - @Moah @Toby Andrl no playing out from the back crap here. These guys keep it simple and you won’t notice them because they do their job. Low-key but consistent in their dislike for Mikel.

LB - @ArtetaOut (the Marcelo role) can often struggle defensively and usually not seen during our winning runs but an absolute killer in the final third, would probably be a winger at another club, he’s that talented.

CDM - @Macho aka Busquets (co-captain)One of the greatest Arteta outers in recent years. The brain of the team, keeps things going with his athletic articles and is fair and balanced, maintaining discipline in midfield and in his criticisms of Arteta. But when the ref isn’t looking he’ll let off some pure Mikel hatred. The paradigm of consistency, they tried run him off the forum and they couldn’t. Also invented ‘discuss’. Living legend.

RCM - @yorch44 like a prime Vidal this guy, absolutely bonkers. Can have his off days but when he’s on he’s all over the place, destroying the shins of anyone who dares to defend Mikel. Kind of guy you want on your side but would absolutely hate to play against, ask @BaZZe if you don’t believe me. Used to be captain but even his own teammates are scared of him.

LCM - @Sapient Hawk aka Zidane possibly the most creative Arteta outer of all time. The prose is immaculate, when he’s insulting Mikel it’s like watching a ballerina at work absolutely bamboozling his defenders with metaphors, simile and alliteration. But he’s not just a creator, behind all that dazzling footwork is a guy who despises Mikel and won’t hesitate to kick him in the chest if given the opportunity.

LW - With Marcelo pretty much owning the left flank we get @jones playing the inverted winger role. Arguably only second to @Sapient Hawk in creativity, when these two link up in the left channel defenders quake in their boots. The Mbappe of Arteta outers, catch him destroying Mikriders with a skilful stats based rainbow flick or simply blowing past them for pace with a well timed “suck your mum”. Has been a known wonder kid for a while but he’s now established on the scene and some are already saying he might just be the best in the world…

RW - @Tir Na Nog flip flop? More like flip flap. Defenders can’t touch this dynamic winger. The Neymar of ArtetaOut. Stats, tweets, setting the expectations high to stick the boot in when Mikel fails? The rumoured inventor of “but A-M told me” has it all. Whether it’s going on the outside to set up the forum with a tweet that makes Mikel look bad or cutting in and banging in a top bins 10+ like Mikel hatepost you can count on this guy to always be involved in the goals.

ST - @Rasmi (captain) this big bruising number 9 is only here for one thing. Hating Mikel. You won’t find him contributing much to the build up play, he doesn’t even believe in stats or Twitter (??) and you won’t see him getting loads of likes but you can count on his hatred for Mikel when it come to finishing chances. Doesn’t miss, always scoring, never fails to exceed his xG. Once in a generation type of player.

Manager - if proving why Mikel is a fraud was a European trophy then @Camus is Unai Emery. Absolute tactical genius this guy, manages to even make Mikel’s winning runs look bad and you can never say he didn’t deserve to win. Has beaten @AbouCuéllar in four cup finals and counting.

Subs
@<<reed>> huge talent but isn’t serious, prefers to stay on the bench and post memes but bring him on and he’s likely to dribble through four and smash a 20+ liker into the top corner

@ExtjExhtts getting on in age now but this CM was hating on Mikel before it was cool. Now content to sit on the bench saying “I told you guys this manager was a fraud” but is still quality when called on off the bench.

@Gunner boy dd If you need someone who will run through brick walls to hate Mikel then this is your guy. Lacks quality on the ball but makes up for it with pure intensity/insanity. Manager’s have struggled to channel this into safe disciplined football and his teammates refer to him as a walking red card. Always backs the beef, has three red cards this season, two as a substitute.

@Batman former starting LW before @jones took his spot. Bro hates Mikel almost as much as he hates crime. Only reason he doesn’t start more is because he’s always out late at night and turns up to training tired but is still a mercurial player on his day. Rumoured to be a billionaire outside of football.

@Baki nobody quite knows who this lad is, appeared out of nowhere but his hatred for Mikel was clear. Absolutely battered @Macho in his first training session because he only has one setting: ‘100%’. Shocking on the ball but you can count on him to inject that energy when called upon. Crowd favourite/cult hero the Tony Hibbert of the team.

Only problem my height is about Santi Cazorla and more similar to his playing style ... But very close lol jajajajaja... I laughed a lot

 

[yorch44]

Btw @Trilly need to add @yorch44 and @Malky to the list.

What did I lose lol ... Lots of mentions in one day!! Wow

 

[yorch44]

Can somebody tag me when it's safe to return?

Wait until arsenal get a point

 

[yorch44]

So long story short we’ve got the quantity of a top side but not the quality.

As tends to be the case with Arteta you’re left wondering whether it’s a matter of time before he gets the quality side down or if he’s just an average manager and this is his limit.

I think you know where I stand. The fact we’re not 8th or something but 16th when it comes to big chances created leads me to think that it’s one of the areas where managers can demonstrate their ability irrespective of player ability.

Lots of those xG or whatever it is comes from crosses. And those doesn't count for big chances created... You have a big part of your answer there.

 

[jones]

I am fairly certain Arteta pays a PR firm to pump his presence in online communities like Reddit. It's a tactic that many companies employ. That's the only explanation for the level of delusion on r/gunners

There's another explanation, the Arsenal Reddit is a tragic cesspit filled with ignorant smelly FIFA playing yanks who will watch an NLD with their Sp**s supporting friends talking about "hey buddy right on really great how you scored on us there dude" before wanking each other off.

The website itself is really useful, no place faster for news, clips of goals or highlights but as soon as I scroll to the comments my blood pressure spikes

 

[Kav]

Can somebody tag me when it's safe to return?

After the apocalypse. Even then it might be too early.