• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

This xG nonsense


Perryqhill said:
He shoots pretty much a foot from the penalty spot having taken a touch about three feet into the area.

Thus it makes measuring the chance he's taken a bit hard as he's received the ball on the edge of the box when running at pace. Knowing Brian Brobbey and his strengths we pretty much can suggest the chance of him having a good opportunity in that situation is higher than one in ten as that kind of opportunity is manna from heaven for him.

If its Enzo Le Fee he's probably taking the shot as soon as he receives the ball on the edge of the area, which makes it much harder or going to take a touch, take a step sideways and beat the defender in another way, thus meaning it's lesser chance. Had it been Enzo Le Fee then maybe the ball wouldn't have also been played in the same manner anyway.

So for me not taking into account the relative strength and weaknesses of the individual player in each situation means its lacking context and a bit shit as a result*



*though obviously that would make it even more complex and more open to question.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that's the whole point of it to some extent? By NOT taking account of relative abilities is how you can spot good players? And why many premier league sides out score their xG - because they are better than their peers playing in league two (for example).

Better strikers and goalkeepers will be easily identifiable by how they perform against their xG and xGA
 
MiddleAgedMan said:
Most of the people on these threads don't. Despite it being quite simple.

You have just proven you DONT understand it with that sentence.
Click to expand...
Of course I understand it.

Put it this way if the exact same chance fell to Erling Haaland and John Kay (one for the oldies) they'd both have the exact same XG, but who's most likely to score?

What gets me is when they produce league tables based on XG, it's bullshit.
 
Binxy said:
Of course I understand it.

Put it this way if the exact same chance fell to Erling Haaland and John Kay (one for the oldies) they'd both have the exact same XG, but who's most likely to score?

What gets me is when they produce league tables based on XG, it's bullshit.
Click to expand...
Yes so it demonstrates Haaland is a better striker than John Kay.

But it also demonstrates how good a TEAM is at creating that chance.

But xG (obviously) doesn't show who is a better tackler out of The Tractor and Haaland. So like all football stats it is useful to a point, but don't take it in isolation as pure gospel proof of anything.

Why worry if someone produces a table on xG? Ignore it if you want. Analyse it for some interesting points to discuss or consider if you want.

I don't understand why so many seem triggered by it
 
I noticed Everton won the xG match on Saturday, I gather a penalty scores highly. I was surprised that ours was still only 0.88 though. Felt like we created some good chances and worked Pickford quite a bit
 
MiddleAgedMan said:
Yes so it demonstrates Haaland is a better striker than John Kay.

But it also demonstrates how good a TEAM is at creating that chance.

But xG (obviously) doesn't show who is a better tackler out of The Tractor and Haaland. So like all football stats it is useful to a point, but don't take it in isolation as pure gospel proof of anything.

Why worry if someone produces a table on xG? Ignore it if you want. Analyse it for some interesting points to discuss or consider if you want.

I don't understand why so many seem triggered by it
Click to expand...
I do ignore it, it's a load of shite.
 
APH said:
I noticed Everton won the xG match on Saturday, I gather a penalty scores highly. I was surprised that ours was still only 0.88 though. Felt like we created some good chances and worked Pickford quite a bit
Click to expand...
Hence xG can be quite useful, because really we did not create any gilt edges chances. Controlled the game and played quite well without creating golden chances, like many of our matches in some ways.
Binxy said:
I do ignore it, it's a load of shite.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are complaining about it
 
MiddleAgedMan said:
Hence xG can be quite useful, because really we did not create any gilt edges chances. Controlled the game and played quite well without creating golden chances, like many of our matches in some ways.

Yet here you are complaining about it
Click to expand...
Who's complaining?
 
MiddleAgedMan said:
Hence xG can be quite useful, because really we did not create any gilt edges chances. Controlled the game and played quite well without creating golden chances, like many of our matches in some ways.

Yet here you are complaining about it
Click to expand...
We had much better chances than Everton. Pickford made a couple of decent saves and mayenda got put through 1 on 1 and put it wide.

I can’t remember roefs having a save to make.

Shows why xG is a complete load of shite.
 
The problem with xG is that people weren’t brought up on it.

We’re fine with counting corners, shots on goal and shots on target - and nobody points out that these stats don’t distinguish between the quality of shot or the distance the shot came from. We take it for what it is - a stat to try and help inform how the game went. Because they’re simple stats that we were all pretty much brought up on.

xG has came in with advancements in sports science a discipline which, in part, helped us sign some of the players we did in the summer. Eg: A goalkeeper who consistently outperforms their expected goals against over the long term might be worth a look and a visit from the scouting team? They’ll still need to be watched, perhaps even trialed - but bloody hell, why wouldn’t you want to use that sort of statistic and keep it in the proper and appropriate context?
 
KGC83 said:
We had much better chances than Everton. Pickford made a couple of decent saves and mayenda got put through 1 on 1 and put it wide.

I can’t remember roefs having a save to make.

Shows why xG is a complete load of shite.
Click to expand...

Pickford made saves from low-chance attempts. His two biggest saves were from an overhead kick and a shot from well outside the box.

We played some nice football, but we didn’t actually create that many good chances. Enzo’s goal was a brilliant finish from a chance that probably only 1 in 8 would score from.
 
I think we should just forget about goals scored and start deciding games on possession, XG, turnovers, progressive carries, tackles, blocks, imaginary yellow cards, and any other bullshit the so called experts decide...🤔
 
TartanMackem said:
Pickford made saves from low-chance attempts. His two biggest saves were from an overhead kick and a shot from well outside the box.

We played some nice football, but we didn’t actually create that many good chances. Enzo’s goal was a brilliant finish from a chance that probably only 1 in 8 would score from.
Click to expand...
What chances did Everton create to have a higher xG than us? Mayenda probably missed the best chance of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top