And what does it mean if you miss all 4 chances... that you had 4 shots on goal and probably should have scored at least 1? Fuck me running, I need a stat for that??
It’s a way of quantifying that.
-
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.
The xG nonsense
- Thread starter LineTrash
- Start date
It’s a way of quantifying that.
columbo70
Midfield
Like I said he doesn't look up.. doesn't seem to have that composure. The one at Everton could have easily hit Pickford....I still love him though and yes it's something a coach can work on....just needs to work his brain a bit quicker and look.
Morny
Striker
You don't need a stat for it. But some people like it, and on a large scale, used correctly, it can be useful. As proven by multibillion pound private companies using it as part of their operation.And what does it mean if you miss all 4 chances... that you had 4 shots on goal and probably should have scored at least 1? Fuck me running, I need a stat for that??
If you don't like it, you don't have to engage with it. Same as I don't think there's much value in possession stats, so I rarely pay any attention to them. It's easy.
Vicham
Midfield
Which again makes such a table utterly useless. If it is purely based on xg, then 0,1 is the same as 0,99. But statistically, 0,99 would have a higher chance of resulting in a goal
DJ Doubt
Winger
And what does it mean if you miss all 4 chances... that you had 4 shots on goal and probably should have scored at least 1? Fuck me running, I need a stat for that??
This thread is absolutely painful reading
20% of people get it
The rest are either being willfully obtuse, and refusing to engage properly, or are too thick to understand
It's proper Father Dougal "those cows are far away" stuff
cfg
Striker
Read or heard somewhere that only 28% of 1 on 1 with keepers result in a goal.No it’s not a 1 in chance though is it. Brobbey’s finishing isn’t the best. Wilson scores it nearly every time.
If a striker can only score that chance 1 in 3 you’re shite.
I honestly can’t believe you’ve said that
Between 28 and 35% from a quick search online.
Last edited:
42
Striker
Its a stat on the probability of scoring a goal. Thats it.
The problem is that it doesnt take into account various nuances of what happens during the game. If you just park the bus against man city & grind out a 0-0, youve done exactly what you intended to do & played the petfect game, but xg says they should've won 3-0. This is why its pointless for the purpose of producing alternative 'justice' leagues the Brentford fans are dribbling over. Im not saying the stat itself is pointless as it has a purpose in the same way possession or shots on target does, it just doesn't prove that we've been unlucky. We are where we are because of the way we played & tactics deployed.
Prior to xg, Graham Taylor used similar stats to nearly win the league with Watford. The flaw in it was that it was only effective against the way teams played at the time, and didnt work when the opposition had high levels of possession
Its a similar thing in economics with the use of GDP. It uses high level averages, but the more inequality becomes an issue, the less meaningful it is for the average person & just becomes a measure of how well billionaires are doing
LineTrash
Striker
The point of this thread was to give a big "F U" to the people who use this stat as a negative against SAFC and said we would be relegated because the xG was so low!! I could give two fucks about it personally!!
Coeus
Striker
I really enjoy seeing people rage over xG. It's just a stat. It's no different to BBC telling you how much your players walked vs jogged vs sprinted. No-one's claiming that it'll Gandalf certain outcomes. No-one's going to replace the real league table with xG table and take Europe away.
It's just an interesting bit of data analysis for nerds, chill out
You must be logged on to see media items
Tbf it's a statistic of made-up data or at least incorrect data.
I understand it has its place, but it's used pretty skewiff by many.
Yep and tbf he states that at the start but comes across well without any real malice towards us
Definitely Maybe
Striker
This is where it comes back to the 'it's just a stat' thing - it was only ever intended to roughly quantify the quality of the chances created, not to say 'X should have won' and as you say, the xG league tables are utter nonsense. People get angry that the metric exists because people misuse it but that's like saying 'corner stats are a load of shite' because somebody claims teams the team with the most corners deserve to win. The stat isn't shite - it's just a stat - it's the person making a nonsense claim whose the idiot.
You're right about Graham Taylor and even further back than that, the entire long ball game that most teams played for decades has roots in it - Charles Reep counting the number of passes leading to goals, concluding that more goals were scored from fewer passes leading to managers playing long balls to play the supposed most efficient way possible based on data analysis. Whereas nowadays it's 'more goals are scored from this position therefore try to work the ball to there instead of shooting from range where fewer goals are scored'.
woodlebert
Striker
Last edited:
Peel Street Massif
Full Back
The issue is people who are trying to extrapolate meaning from the data set.
The nuance of each game means in isolation XG means very little.
If you score in the first minute and don't create another chance but win 1-0, its not because you are crap, its because the circumstances of the game dictate it. The team 1-0 down might create dozens of low quality chances but, it doesn't mean they are good.
Our XG was low in a lot of games. That's all the data shows. We as Sunderland fans know why that was, and in each specific game know if we deserved to win/draw/lose.
Next season we need to be more creative, and to try and control games more, something we did at the tail end of the season.
The nuance of each game means in isolation XG means very little.
If you score in the first minute and don't create another chance but win 1-0, its not because you are crap, its because the circumstances of the game dictate it. The team 1-0 down might create dozens of low quality chances but, it doesn't mean they are good.
Our XG was low in a lot of games. That's all the data shows. We as Sunderland fans know why that was, and in each specific game know if we deserved to win/draw/lose.
Next season we need to be more creative, and to try and control games more, something we did at the tail end of the season.
In the sense that people who see some value in xG try to coherently and rationally explain their position and those that oppose it don't really address anything said by those that defend it other than just repeating 'it's sh*t'.
For me it's a more informative version of shots on target and then up to the individual what they want to glean from it.
Last edited:
LineTrash
Striker
Are you serious??
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see media items
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links
42
Striker
I think where it falls down & why we have our situation is that if you assign say 0.1 xg for a given situation. That 0.1 comes from the average of 1000s of matches. Now if youre playing a team with a ropey defence then that situation would result in a higher probability. Equally when you do it against a team of geat shot stoppers (ie safc) then it would be lower. So because we have great shot stoppers, then oppositions xg is actually overstated, so then trying to produce a league of what should've happened just doesnt work.
