The world cup

[nirvana]

Have tried not to think about a possible final but I think Belgium are a far more threatening side than France and France are prone to off days ( statistically proven). Still want little Belgium to beat their patronising neighbours though.

[horseplayer]

wont happen but I would start Boyata rather than Kompany if I was Martinez

The side has enough leaders without him and he looked rusty again the other day and was very lucky not to concede the penalty

[Archer]

Looks like they’ve had 4 shots on target in the last ~5 hours they’ve played. They’ll certainly need to make them count from now.

Is it coming home though

I’d say they are probably as overrated by the market now as they have been at any stage, so I’ll go with no. Just an amazing stat for a team that is winning and scoring some goals though.

So amazing it isn't right.   Looks like 6 to me, but 5 hours includes the game where we played the seconds and maybe didn't try as hard as we could, and excludes the game we won 6-1 and the first game where we had 8.  Sure 5 hours is just a coincidence and wasn't just chosen to make a point.    

Just short of 3/1 with betfair looks about right for a team that is a significant favourite for the semi, and will likely be a similar dog in the final.   It might be a little short, but isn't wildly out.  I am not going to rush to take the 9/4 with Victor. It isn't like he'd lay me anyway.

2 against Sweden, 2 against Colombia and the 2 against Belgium were in the first 30 mins, so outside the stipulated timeframe. I think 4 is right and it’s like 4 hours 53 with one extra time and the all the injury time.

It is an abuse of stats, as the duration has been especially chosen to favour a specious argument.  In the circumstances, the only thing amazing about it is that you have continue to argue about it after somebody has pointed it how flawed this kind of reasoning is.  So in the whole comp they likely had 20 odd shots on target, which doesn't feel amazingly low at all.  

That seems like a crazy overreaction. I’m certainly not arguing though, it just seemed like a reasonable and potentially helpful thing to do to explain what I meant, the most recent ~5 hours seemed relevant. I agree it misrepresents the situation to some extent by going back to exactly the fifth last attempt on target.  My apologies if it pissed you off.

My job uses stats, so I guess the selective use of stats is somthing that stands out more to me than others.  I don't know who started spreading this stat, but its original purpose seems unlikely to have been to poduce something helpful, it looks way more likely to have been put together by someone wanting to mislead.
 
As I had a bit of spare time I ran the basic stats on the whole World Cup tournament.  I used that period as the matches were all serious (Maybe barring England Belgium), and are sufficiently current to be meaningful.  They weren't specifically chosen to put any team in a good or bad light.

Here are the basis attacking stats for the World Cup.  I am not claiming every stat, and it isn't every one people use in football models, this isn't Star Lizard, but it should give a basic picture of how attacking each team left in the World Cup.  They were chosen simply because they were easily accesible using google.  I am sure xG must be somewhere on the internet, I just didn't find it quickly enough.

Goals scored
Belgium 14
England 11
France 9
Croatia 9

Total Shots
Belgium 85
Croatia 77
England 68
France 55

Shots on target
Belgium 33
England 21
France 18
Croatia 18

Corners
Belgium 30
England 30
Croatia 26
France 15

Possession
Croatia 55.6
England 55.4
France 53.6
Belgium 52.8

The possesion stats are all very close and just based on an average of the possesion for each game.  I haven't adjusted for extra time or added up the minutes.  Hence it is entirely possible that these numbers are even closer, or that England are top.

Overall, England aren't having fewer shots and shots on target than anyone else, they are pretty average.  They look about the 2nd best team overall on these stats to me.  I think Belgium probably lead on stats, and France are surprising bad given they won 4-3 against Brazil.   That confirms my visual perception in that Belgium have looked the most impressive of the teams left to me.  Given I have done some legwork, I guess I'll probably back them against France.

If you just want an interesting stat, France have had 6 shots on target in the knockout phase, and scored 6 goals.  If you believed the law of averages was signifciant...

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't checked all this, so there could be mistakes.

FWIT The law of averages is bollocks too.

Group Stage xG over 3 games

England xG 7.6       xGA 3.6        xGD 4.0
Belgium xG 8.5       xGA 2.9        xGD  5.6
France  xG  3.7       xGA 1.8        xGD  1.9
Croatia xG  4.3        xGA 4.7        xGD  -0.4


Knock-out

England 2.34 - 0.62 Colombia
England 1.20 - 0.56 Sweden

Belgium 2.64 - 0.64 Japan
Belgium 0.54 - 2.87 Brazil

France 2.16 - 0.86 Argentina
France 1.01 - 0.46 Uruguay

Croatia 2.66 - 1.02 Denmark
Croatia 1.50 - 1.21 Russia

With the exception of Belgium v Brazil where Belgium fortunate in xG terms, all of the other 7 ties have been won by the team with the best xG.

England are doing just fine in xG terms but of course a tiny sample size, different minutes played, different quality opposition.........

[kukushkin88]

Looks like they’ve had 4 shots on target in the last ~5 hours they’ve played. They’ll certainly need to make them count from now.

Is it coming home though

I’d say they are probably as overrated by the market now as they have been at any stage, so I’ll go with no. Just an amazing stat for a team that is winning and scoring some goals though.

So amazing it isn't right.   Looks like 6 to me, but 5 hours includes the game where we played the seconds and maybe didn't try as hard as we could, and excludes the game we won 6-1 and the first game where we had 8.  Sure 5 hours is just a coincidence and wasn't just chosen to make a point.    

Just short of 3/1 with betfair looks about right for a team that is a significant favourite for the semi, and will likely be a similar dog in the final.   It might be a little short, but isn't wildly out.  I am not going to rush to take the 9/4 with Victor. It isn't like he'd lay me anyway.

2 against Sweden, 2 against Colombia and the 2 against Belgium were in the first 30 mins, so outside the stipulated timeframe. I think 4 is right and it’s like 4 hours 53 with one extra time and the all the injury time.

It is an abuse of stats, as the duration has been especially chosen to favour a specious argument.  In the circumstances, the only thing amazing about it is that you have continue to argue about it after somebody has pointed it how flawed this kind of reasoning is.  So in the whole comp they likely had 20 odd shots on target, which doesn't feel amazingly low at all.  

That seems like a crazy overreaction. I’m certainly not arguing though, it just seemed like a reasonable and potentially helpful thing to do to explain what I meant, the most recent ~5 hours seemed relevant. I agree it misrepresents the situation to some extent by going back to exactly the fifth last attempt on target.  My apologies if it pissed you off.

My job uses stats, so I guess the selective use of stats is somthing that stands out more to me than others.  I don't know who started spreading this stat, but its original purpose seems unlikely to have been to poduce something helpful, it looks way more likely to have been put together by someone wanting to mislead.
 
As I had a bit of spare time I ran the basic stats on the whole World Cup tournament.  I used that period as the matches were all serious (Maybe barring England Belgium), and are sufficiently current to be meaningful.  They weren't specifically chosen to put any team in a good or bad light.

Here are the basis attacking stats for the World Cup.  I am not claiming every stat, and it isn't every one people use in football models, this isn't Star Lizard, but it should give a basic picture of how attacking each team left in the World Cup.  They were chosen simply because they were easily accesible using google.  I am sure xG must be somewhere on the internet, I just didn't find it quickly enough.

Goals scored
Belgium 14
England 11
France 9
Croatia 9

Total Shots
Belgium 85
Croatia 77
England 68
France 55

Shots on target
Belgium 33
England 21
France 18
Croatia 18

Corners
Belgium 30
England 30
Croatia 26
France 15

Possession
Croatia 55.6
England 55.4
France 53.6
Belgium 52.8

The possesion stats are all very close and just based on an average of the possesion for each game.  I haven't adjusted for extra time or added up the minutes.  Hence it is entirely possible that these numbers are even closer, or that England are top.

Overall, England aren't having fewer shots and shots on target than anyone else, they are pretty average.  They look about the 2nd best team overall on these stats to me.  I think Belgium probably lead on stats, and France are surprising bad given they won 4-3 against Brazil.   That confirms my visual perception in that Belgium have looked the most impressive of the teams left to me.  Given I have done some legwork, I guess I'll probably back them against France.

If you just want an interesting stat, France have had 6 shots on target in the knockout phase, and scored 6 goals.  If you believed the law of averages was signifciant...

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't checked all this, so there could be mistakes.

FWIT The law of averages is bollocks too.

Group Stage xG over 3 games

England xG 7.6       xGA 3.6        xGD 4.0
Belgium xG 8.5       xGA 2.9        xGD  5.6
France  xG  3.7       xGA 1.8        xGD  1.9
Croatia xG  4.3        xGA 4.7        xGD  -0.4


Knock-out

England 2.34 - 0.62 Colombia
England 1.20 - 0.56 Sweden

Belgium 2.64 - 0.64 Japan
Belgium 0.54 - 2.87 Brazil

France 2.16 - 0.86 Argentina
France 1.01 - 0.46 Uruguay

Croatia 2.66 - 1.02 Denmark
Croatia 1.50 - 1.21 Russia

With the exception of Belgium v Brazil where Belgium fortunate in xG terms, all of the other 7 ties have been won by the team with the best xG.

England are doing just fine in xG terms but of course a tiny sample size, different minutes played, different quality opposition.........

No doubt sample size is our biggest enemy here. I still think there is merit trying to apply a weighting for game situation; winning/losing/drawing and calibre of opposition. Probably meaningless on the sample as you say. It also occurs to me that in the knockout stages of a WC, we’re probably not learning a huge amount by analysing the same things we do in the English domestic leagues.

Thanks for your responses guys.

[Archer]

Have tried not to think about a possible final but I think Belgium are a far more threatening side than France and France are prone to off days ( statistically proven). Still want little Belgium to beat their patronising neighbours though.

Likewise I'll be rooting for Belgium and in the event England actually make  the final it will have the novelty of being a Premier League affair.

[TightEnd]

 They're kind of a mix between a boa constrictor and a fire blanket. A team that always has enough, and much more, but always only does enough, and never more.

[Archer]

They're kind of a mix between a boa constrictor and a fire blanket. A team that always has enough, and much more, but always only does enough, and never more.

You have gone all Johnathan Liew But very apt...

France depressingly good in a game needing Belgium to score first.

[tikay]

Looks like they’ve had 4 shots on target in the last ~5 hours they’ve played. They’ll certainly need to make them count from now.

Is it coming home though

I’d say they are probably as overrated by the market now as they have been at any stage, so I’ll go with no. Just an amazing stat for a team that is winning and scoring some goals though.

So amazing it isn't right.   Looks like 6 to me, but 5 hours includes the game where we played the seconds and maybe didn't try as hard as we could, and excludes the game we won 6-1 and the first game where we had 8.  Sure 5 hours is just a coincidence and wasn't just chosen to make a point.    

Just short of 3/1 with betfair looks about right for a team that is a significant favourite for the semi, and will likely be a similar dog in the final.   It might be a little short, but isn't wildly out.  I am not going to rush to take the 9/4 with Victor. It isn't like he'd lay me anyway.

2 against Sweden, 2 against Colombia and the 2 against Belgium were in the first 30 mins, so outside the stipulated timeframe. I think 4 is right and it’s like 4 hours 53 with one extra time and the all the injury time.

It is an abuse of stats, as the duration has been especially chosen to favour a specious argument.  In the circumstances, the only thing amazing about it is that you have continue to argue about it after somebody has pointed it how flawed this kind of reasoning is.  So in the whole comp they likely had 20 odd shots on target, which doesn't feel amazingly low at all.  

That seems like a crazy overreaction. I’m certainly not arguing though, it just seemed like a reasonable and potentially helpful thing to do to explain what I meant, the most recent ~5 hours seemed relevant. I agree it misrepresents the situation to some extent by going back to exactly the fifth last attempt on target.  My apologies if it pissed you off.

My job uses stats, so I guess the selective use of stats is somthing that stands out more to me than others.  I don't know who started spreading this stat, but its original purpose seems unlikely to have been to poduce something helpful, it looks way more likely to have been put together by someone wanting to mislead.
 
As I had a bit of spare time I ran the basic stats on the whole World Cup tournament.  I used that period as the matches were all serious (Maybe barring England Belgium), and are sufficiently current to be meaningful.  They weren't specifically chosen to put any team in a good or bad light.

Here are the basis attacking stats for the World Cup.  I am not claiming every stat, and it isn't every one people use in football models, this isn't Star Lizard, but it should give a basic picture of how attacking each team left in the World Cup.  They were chosen simply because they were easily accesible using google.  I am sure xG must be somewhere on the internet, I just didn't find it quickly enough.

Goals scored
Belgium 14
England 11
France 9
Croatia 9

Total Shots
Belgium 85
Croatia 77
England 68
France 55

Shots on target
Belgium 33
England 21
France 18
Croatia 18

Corners
Belgium 30
England 30
Croatia 26
France 15

Possession
Croatia 55.6
England 55.4
France 53.6
Belgium 52.8

The possesion stats are all very close and just based on an average of the possesion for each game.  I haven't adjusted for extra time or added up the minutes.  Hence it is entirely possible that these numbers are even closer, or that England are top.

Overall, England aren't having fewer shots and shots on target than anyone else, they are pretty average.  They look about the 2nd best team overall on these stats to me.  I think Belgium probably lead on stats, and France are surprising bad given they won 4-3 against Brazil.   That confirms my visual perception in that Belgium have looked the most impressive of the teams left to me.  Given I have done some legwork, I guess I'll probably back them against France.

If you just want an interesting stat, France have had 6 shots on target in the knockout phase, and scored 6 goals.  If you believed the law of averages was signifciant...

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't checked all this, so there could be mistakes.

FWIT The law of averages is bollocks too.

Group Stage xG over 3 games

England xG 7.6       xGA 3.6        xGD 4.0
Belgium xG 8.5       xGA 2.9        xGD  5.6
France  xG  3.7       xGA 1.8        xGD  1.9
Croatia xG  4.3        xGA 4.7        xGD  -0.4


Knock-out

England 2.34 - 0.62 Colombia
England 1.20 - 0.56 Sweden

Belgium 2.64 - 0.64 Japan
Belgium 0.54 - 2.87 Brazil

France 2.16 - 0.86 Argentina
France 1.01 - 0.46 Uruguay

Croatia 2.66 - 1.02 Denmark
Croatia 1.50 - 1.21 Russia

With the exception of Belgium v Brazil where Belgium fortunate in xG terms, all of the other 7 ties have been won by the team with the best xG.

England are doing just fine in xG terms but of course a tiny sample size, different minutes played, different quality opposition.........

Pardon my obvious ignorance, but these xG, xGA & xGD stats......

Surely the quality of the opposition is of crucial relevance?

If one team has several "soft" opponents (say, Tunisia, Panama, Colombia etc) would that not falsely improve those stats?

In EPL parlance, we'd expect, say, Man City to have better stats v, say, Stoke, then against, Spurs.

What am I missing?

[kukushkin88]

Looks like they’ve had 4 shots on target in the last ~5 hours they’ve played. They’ll certainly need to make them count from now.

Is it coming home though

I’d say they are probably as overrated by the market now as they have been at any stage, so I’ll go with no. Just an amazing stat for a team that is winning and scoring some goals though.

So amazing it isn't right.   Looks like 6 to me, but 5 hours includes the game where we played the seconds and maybe didn't try as hard as we could, and excludes the game we won 6-1 and the first game where we had 8.  Sure 5 hours is just a coincidence and wasn't just chosen to make a point.    

Just short of 3/1 with betfair looks about right for a team that is a significant favourite for the semi, and will likely be a similar dog in the final.   It might be a little short, but isn't wildly out.  I am not going to rush to take the 9/4 with Victor. It isn't like he'd lay me anyway.

2 against Sweden, 2 against Colombia and the 2 against Belgium were in the first 30 mins, so outside the stipulated timeframe. I think 4 is right and it’s like 4 hours 53 with one extra time and the all the injury time.

It is an abuse of stats, as the duration has been especially chosen to favour a specious argument.  In the circumstances, the only thing amazing about it is that you have continue to argue about it after somebody has pointed it how flawed this kind of reasoning is.  So in the whole comp they likely had 20 odd shots on target, which doesn't feel amazingly low at all.  

That seems like a crazy overreaction. I’m certainly not arguing though, it just seemed like a reasonable and potentially helpful thing to do to explain what I meant, the most recent ~5 hours seemed relevant. I agree it misrepresents the situation to some extent by going back to exactly the fifth last attempt on target.  My apologies if it pissed you off.

My job uses stats, so I guess the selective use of stats is somthing that stands out more to me than others.  I don't know who started spreading this stat, but its original purpose seems unlikely to have been to poduce something helpful, it looks way more likely to have been put together by someone wanting to mislead.
 
As I had a bit of spare time I ran the basic stats on the whole World Cup tournament.  I used that period as the matches were all serious (Maybe barring England Belgium), and are sufficiently current to be meaningful.  They weren't specifically chosen to put any team in a good or bad light.

Here are the basis attacking stats for the World Cup.  I am not claiming every stat, and it isn't every one people use in football models, this isn't Star Lizard, but it should give a basic picture of how attacking each team left in the World Cup.  They were chosen simply because they were easily accesible using google.  I am sure xG must be somewhere on the internet, I just didn't find it quickly enough.

Goals scored
Belgium 14
England 11
France 9
Croatia 9

Total Shots
Belgium 85
Croatia 77
England 68
France 55

Shots on target
Belgium 33
England 21
France 18
Croatia 18

Corners
Belgium 30
England 30
Croatia 26
France 15

Possession
Croatia 55.6
England 55.4
France 53.6
Belgium 52.8

The possesion stats are all very close and just based on an average of the possesion for each game.  I haven't adjusted for extra time or added up the minutes.  Hence it is entirely possible that these numbers are even closer, or that England are top.

Overall, England aren't having fewer shots and shots on target than anyone else, they are pretty average.  They look about the 2nd best team overall on these stats to me.  I think Belgium probably lead on stats, and France are surprising bad given they won 4-3 against Brazil.   That confirms my visual perception in that Belgium have looked the most impressive of the teams left to me.  Given I have done some legwork, I guess I'll probably back them against France.

If you just want an interesting stat, France have had 6 shots on target in the knockout phase, and scored 6 goals.  If you believed the law of averages was signifciant...

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't checked all this, so there could be mistakes.

FWIT The law of averages is bollocks too.

Group Stage xG over 3 games

England xG 7.6       xGA 3.6        xGD 4.0
Belgium xG 8.5       xGA 2.9        xGD  5.6
France  xG  3.7       xGA 1.8        xGD  1.9
Croatia xG  4.3        xGA 4.7        xGD  -0.4


Knock-out

England 2.34 - 0.62 Colombia
England 1.20 - 0.56 Sweden

Belgium 2.64 - 0.64 Japan
Belgium 0.54 - 2.87 Brazil

France 2.16 - 0.86 Argentina
France 1.01 - 0.46 Uruguay

Croatia 2.66 - 1.02 Denmark
Croatia 1.50 - 1.21 Russia

With the exception of Belgium v Brazil where Belgium fortunate in xG terms, all of the other 7 ties have been won by the team with the best xG.

England are doing just fine in xG terms but of course a tiny sample size, different minutes played, different quality opposition.........

Pardon my obvious ignorance, but these xG, xGA & xGD stats......

Surely the quality of the opposition is of crucial relevance?

If one team has several "soft" opponents (say, Tunisia, Panama, Colombia etc) would that not falsely improve those stats?

In EPL parlance, we'd expect, say, Man City to have better stats v, say, Stoke, then against, Spurs.

What am I missing?

I’m still interested in this. I’m reluctant to say what I think, probably best we wait for Doobs.

[nirvana]

Don't worry about all that. We have 3 lions and we will give Croatia a Helluva beating

[Doobs]

Looks like they’ve had 4 shots on target in the last ~5 hours they’ve played. They’ll certainly need to make them count from now.

Is it coming home though

I’d say they are probably as overrated by the market now as they have been at any stage, so I’ll go with no. Just an amazing stat for a team that is winning and scoring some goals though.

So amazing it isn't right.   Looks like 6 to me, but 5 hours includes the game where we played the seconds and maybe didn't try as hard as we could, and excludes the game we won 6-1 and the first game where we had 8.  Sure 5 hours is just a coincidence and wasn't just chosen to make a point.    

Just short of 3/1 with betfair looks about right for a team that is a significant favourite for the semi, and will likely be a similar dog in the final.   It might be a little short, but isn't wildly out.  I am not going to rush to take the 9/4 with Victor. It isn't like he'd lay me anyway.

2 against Sweden, 2 against Colombia and the 2 against Belgium were in the first 30 mins, so outside the stipulated timeframe. I think 4 is right and it’s like 4 hours 53 with one extra time and the all the injury time.

It is an abuse of stats, as the duration has been especially chosen to favour a specious argument.  In the circumstances, the only thing amazing about it is that you have continue to argue about it after somebody has pointed it how flawed this kind of reasoning is.  So in the whole comp they likely had 20 odd shots on target, which doesn't feel amazingly low at all.  

That seems like a crazy overreaction. I’m certainly not arguing though, it just seemed like a reasonable and potentially helpful thing to do to explain what I meant, the most recent ~5 hours seemed relevant. I agree it misrepresents the situation to some extent by going back to exactly the fifth last attempt on target.  My apologies if it pissed you off.

My job uses stats, so I guess the selective use of stats is somthing that stands out more to me than others.  I don't know who started spreading this stat, but its original purpose seems unlikely to have been to poduce something helpful, it looks way more likely to have been put together by someone wanting to mislead.
 
As I had a bit of spare time I ran the basic stats on the whole World Cup tournament.  I used that period as the matches were all serious (Maybe barring England Belgium), and are sufficiently current to be meaningful.  They weren't specifically chosen to put any team in a good or bad light.

Here are the basis attacking stats for the World Cup.  I am not claiming every stat, and it isn't every one people use in football models, this isn't Star Lizard, but it should give a basic picture of how attacking each team left in the World Cup.  They were chosen simply because they were easily accesible using google.  I am sure xG must be somewhere on the internet, I just didn't find it quickly enough.

Goals scored
Belgium 14
England 11
France 9
Croatia 9

Total Shots
Belgium 85
Croatia 77
England 68
France 55

Shots on target
Belgium 33
England 21
France 18
Croatia 18

Corners
Belgium 30
England 30
Croatia 26
France 15

Possession
Croatia 55.6
England 55.4
France 53.6
Belgium 52.8

The possesion stats are all very close and just based on an average of the possesion for each game.  I haven't adjusted for extra time or added up the minutes.  Hence it is entirely possible that these numbers are even closer, or that England are top.

Overall, England aren't having fewer shots and shots on target than anyone else, they are pretty average.  They look about the 2nd best team overall on these stats to me.  I think Belgium probably lead on stats, and France are surprising bad given they won 4-3 against Brazil.   That confirms my visual perception in that Belgium have looked the most impressive of the teams left to me.  Given I have done some legwork, I guess I'll probably back them against France.

If you just want an interesting stat, France have had 6 shots on target in the knockout phase, and scored 6 goals.  If you believed the law of averages was signifciant...

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't checked all this, so there could be mistakes.

FWIT The law of averages is bollocks too.

Group Stage xG over 3 games

England xG 7.6       xGA 3.6        xGD 4.0
Belgium xG 8.5       xGA 2.9        xGD  5.6
France  xG  3.7       xGA 1.8        xGD  1.9
Croatia xG  4.3        xGA 4.7        xGD  -0.4


Knock-out

England 2.34 - 0.62 Colombia
England 1.20 - 0.56 Sweden

Belgium 2.64 - 0.64 Japan
Belgium 0.54 - 2.87 Brazil

France 2.16 - 0.86 Argentina
France 1.01 - 0.46 Uruguay

Croatia 2.66 - 1.02 Denmark
Croatia 1.50 - 1.21 Russia

With the exception of Belgium v Brazil where Belgium fortunate in xG terms, all of the other 7 ties have been won by the team with the best xG.

England are doing just fine in xG terms but of course a tiny sample size, different minutes played, different quality opposition.........

Pardon my obvious ignorance, but these xG, xGA & xGD stats......

Surely the quality of the opposition is of crucial relevance?

If one team has several "soft" opponents (say, Tunisia, Panama, Colombia etc) would that not falsely improve those stats?

In EPL parlance, we'd expect, say, Man City to have better stats v, say, Stoke, then against, Spurs.

What am I missing?

xG takes into account the quality of the chance to score.  So a Harry Kane penalty will get a higher xG (say 0.9) than a Harry Kane shot from 40 yards out at a bad angle (say 0.05).  These numbers are added up to say how many goals that team would have scored on average in that game.  So if Engald had 3 shots in the game that composed two Harry Kane penalties and one  Harry Kane shot from 40 yards out at a bad angle that would give them an xG of 1.85.   That would be the same xG even if both Harry Kane penalties were saved.  It basically gives an indication if a team has had a lucky win.  xGA is expected goals against.  sGD is the expected goal difference.

You could adjust for quality of opposition etc, but it is secondary here.  Who is to say which is the better side of Colombia, Argentina and Uruguay?  Before we played Colombia, some were saying the game was 50/50, to describe them as "soft" opponents seems a stretch.  Argentina waited to the last game until they qualified etc.  Tunisia were as strong as any African side, and at a similar level to Australia.  Panama was the golden draw, but Belgium were tougher than either Peru or Denmark in the group ganes.  We had an easier draw than France overall, but a lot of it is swings and roundabouts.   Adjusting for quality would be both time consuming and a bit arbitrary.  Everyone reading this knows the France draw was a bit tougher and can add whatever adjustment to the raw data they choose.  
  
France are starting favourites against whoever they play in the final and rightfully so, but I think the stats show that they haven't been massively dominant in this comp so far.

[RED-DOG]

Meh

[BigAdz]

Stats..........lol.

We were the best team ,and our youth and inexperience at that level told.

I am sick of hearing how good Southgate is, because nothing in his past has suggested he is that good. He made some brave squad decisions, his first choice 11 was fine, but he couldn't adjust. In the end, I sure dont see why atomic kitten songs make him a hero. I sight him for an exit we should never have been forced down.

The further this tourney has progressed the further back our talisman, Kane has played. Southgate should be making him play the number 9. This was our problem in the last euros when he ended up taken corners etc. It's not what he does best. Southgate should have told him this and stood firm.

Lotus cheek. Looked loaded first two games yet hasn't had a look in while we bring on a slow looking vardy at every opportunity and Linguard just looked small all the time.

For all that, I am so proud of all we did. No one expected to go this far, but to my eyes this was a wasted chance, and at my age there won't be many more this obvious.

Wp England .

[Doobs]

Wp England .

+1

[Chompy]

Achieved about what they were entitled to but it was a fun ride for sure.

Can't go wrong with 1-2 France with Scuy. Only getting shorter as the game approaches.