• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

BBC Alternative League Tables - Data


The thing I find funniest about the opposition to XG is that the club are pumping loads of money into the data science infrastructure. It's this kind of statistical analysis that allows us to unearth gems. Yet on here, because people don't understand XG, they boot off about it and call it a load of shit. It's literally the reason we're in the Europa League!
What XG was given for Brobbeys 1 on 1 which he missed?
Presuming you don’t know..
it is bllx like VAR. made up for someone’s opinion.
It all shows that football isn’t played on computers 😂😂

On xG points we should have finished 18th.
Home form we were 8th.
Away form we were 13th.
Goals scored from set pieces 17th.
Goals against from set pieces 10th.
Goals scored from long shots 16th.
Goals against from long shots 14th.
Goals scored by English players 20th.

The last is particularly impressive. A total of 1 (Riggy at Villa) - the lowest in over 100 years.

Final league position - 7th and Europa League. Stick that up your ar*e OPTA 😂😂😂
What they should be saying is …
Shit they finished 7th with those figures. Imagine if they click more next season 😳
 
What XG was given for Brobbeys 1 on 1 which he missed?
0.33 iirc
Yeah league position is all that matters at the end of the day, although the stat about Rigg isn't good.
I think it masks that O'Nien is English, Ballard is English born (and scored) and Hume is from the UK (and scored)

I'd be more interest in % of minutes for English/UK players. You could have the English international keeper and not have an Englishman score
 
Last edited:
It all shows that football isn’t played on computers 😂😂

On xG points we should have finished 18th.
Home form we were 8th.
Away form we were 13th.
Goals scored from set pieces 17th.
Goals against from set pieces 10th.
Goals scored from long shots 16th.
Goals against from long shots 14th.
Goals scored by English players 20th.

The last is particularly impressive. A total of 1 (Riggy at Villa) - the lowest in over 100 years.

Final league position - 7th and Europa League. Stick that up your ar*e OPTA 😂😂😂
Its All a load of shite this XG lark when we have GX in our side. 😂
 
How can it possibly be 0.33 😂
Because players like Brobbey miss chances like that
Not all the same teams who were good at home were also good away and vice versa. Fulham great at home, poor away. Spurs, Chelsea, Everton, Forest and Palace all better away than at home, to varying degrees. Brighton same points as us at home but one less away.

We were better than the Mags both home and away.
Yes but I'm saying I don't understand how we can outperform both our home and away form. All the other teams (I think) seem to be inbetween their home/away positions, which I would expect
 
I think I've cracked it, it's the alphabet

We're level on home form with Brighton (joint 7th) and ahead of them on the away table. But they’ve placed B ahead of S

So SAFC are in between our 2 positions, as I thought we should be
 
Last edited:
0.33 iirc

I think it masks that O'Nien is English, Ballard is English born (and scored) and Hume is from the UK (and scored)

I'd be more interest in % of minutes for English/UK players. You could have the English international keeper and not have an Englishman score
That's a v good point, not as bad as it first sounds!
 
xG, drivers of xG and derivatives of xG are fundamental indicators in football analysis.
Football analysis existed before XG, you don’t know the extent that XG is used at Sunderland, nor the extent it played in our summer recruitment.
It’s therefore a nonsense statement to suggest we’re in Europe because of XG
 
I don't fully understand it but surely, originally, XG was meant to be a stat that was taken along with a load of others and so gave out a rough probability. Trouble is, people who don't understand statistics (me included) got hold of the idea and think it predicts the outcome accurately on it's own.
 
I don't fully understand it but surely, originally, XG was meant to be a stat that was taken along with a load of others and so gave out a rough probability. Trouble is, people who don't understand statistics (me included) got hold of the idea and think it predicts the outcome accurately on it's own.
It's a guide to the quality of chances you're creating. Useful as part of a broader set of data but some take it out of context and think it's saying we're shite.
 
Back
Top