• 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


gavlarsafc89 said:
XG is used for teams that ain’t doing well to make them feel better.

If you want to know how useless XG is then that Brobbey header was .20XG meaning it should go in 1/5 when I’d argue it should be scored 5/5. 5 yards out FFS
Click to expand...
the easier chance was the first one tbh when he was clean through. No idea why he was trying to be so delicate with it, just had to put his foot through it
 
Antidotes said:
I'd much rather we were solid defensively like we have been, and can focus on being more expansive once we secure safety because that will likely come at a cost defensively. Which I'm sure people will then be equally pissed off about.
Click to expand...
(I think) that’s what xga measures. Stats are an indicator but not the be all and end all
 
jcrossan said:
If the Premier league table was set according to this xG silliness, that pundits are always mentioning and we are supposed to take seriously, we would be 4th bottom, just ahead of Aston Villa who would be 16th.

Thankfully we play on grass and not inside a computer program.
Click to expand...
Surely that would be 5th bottom then?
 
This one has Overall, Home and Away. The overall one has Sunderland, Burnley and West Ham in the bottom three as does the home one, the away one has Sunderland, Burnley and Wolves in the bottom three. It is kind of strange how these tables keep putting you in the same bottom three as genuine bottom three teams, are you quite sure you have not been a bit lucky this season ?

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Stella Spark said:
Boring team that touches the ball lots of times in the opposition's half = 4 expected goals.


Solid team, that counters with pace = 0.1 expected goals
(Wins 1-0)



Load of rubbish

Motd only had us as having 2 clear chances yesterday, despite Brobby having 2 clear chances just to himself within 2 minutes.
Click to expand...
But that probably was our only two good chances? Think of any others?
Mackem DJ said:
I cant understand how Brobbey fluffs a 1-on-1 most strikers would put away.

Brobbey should take the net out with a header he caught flush from 9 yards.

And adingra had a good chance he duly curled into the far corner.

And that equates to only 0.6xG or sommet :lol:
Click to expand...
Adingra was in no way "a good chance".

We get this on these threads at all as of a lay person knows better than people who have dedicated research in to what is really a good chance.

If they were all excellent chances why didn't we score them all? Clue- because they weren't as good as you may think.
 
Last edited:
gavlarsafc89 said:
XG is used for teams that ain’t doing well to make them feel better.

If you want to know how useless XG is then that Brobbey header was .20XG meaning it should go in 1/5 when I’d argue it should be scored 5/5. 5 yards out FFS
Click to expand...
Yes, showing your bias which is factually wrong.

Things the SMB would have down as "excellent chances". Brobbey twice yesterday. Isidor at Anfield. Brooks play off final. Mayenda at Stoke or Blackburn. Alderete at Anfield. Just off the top off my head. Zero scored from them.

There's a reason games don't all finish 6-5. The chances are not as golden as you may think
 
Last edited:
Mackem DJ said:
I cant understand how Brobbey fluffs a 1-on-1 most strikers would put away.

Brobbey should take the net out with a header he caught flush from 9 yards.

And adingra had a good chance he duly curled into the far corner.

And that equates to only 0.6xG or sommet :lol:
Click to expand...

Yet we only scored once.
 
The Hesk said:
It’s for Football manager footy nerds. Get in the bin
Click to expand...

its just a statistic, like shots on target, corners, possession etc... you can read as much or as little into them as you want

we've all seen games where teams had 20% possession, 0 corners, 1 shot on target, and won 1-0 . whilst the opposition had 20 corners and 20 shots on target

it gives an idea of how the game panned out if you read all of the stats in conjunction, including xG... but nothing gives you the full idea other than actually watching the game
Mackem DJ said:
I cant understand how Brobbey fluffs a 1-on-1 most strikers would put away.

Brobbey should take the net out with a header he caught flush from 9 yards.

And adingra had a good chance he duly curled into the far corner.

And that equates to only 0.6xG or sommet :lol:
Click to expand...

brobbeys header wasn't a sitter if you watch it, it was slightly too high for him, he did extremely well to keep it down the way he did.

a striker of brobbeys height probably scores that once in every 8 or 10 tries. he needed to time his jump to total perfection if he was to get above it.

not like headers that are well within reach
 
Last edited:
because it's half a stat the way we are looking at it. It only makes sense when alongside xg conceeded. Where we are 6th in the table. So by marrying these two stats together we get a closer picture (because points are distributed over the ratio of goals conceeded compared to scored in a single match).
 
MiddleAgedMan said:
Yes, showing your bias which is factually wrong.

Things the SMB would have down as "excellent chances". Brobbey twice yesterday. Isidor at Anfield. Brooks play off final. Mayenda at Stoke or Blackburn. Alderete at Anfield. Just off the top off my head. Zero scored from them.

There's a reason games don't all finish 6-5. The chances are not as golden as you may think
Click to expand...
I do think Adingra's chance was harder than Brobbey's. The pass to him (although great) required a hell of a first touch to get it into a position where he could shoot without barely breaking stride. Brobbey's header should have been on target given the cross and where he was. Whether the keeper would then have been able to save it is a different matter, but it's got no chance of going in if it's off target.
 
TikaTakaTico said:
because it's half a stat the way we are looking at it. It only makes sense when alongside xg conceeded. Where we are 6th in the table. So by marrying these two stats together we get a closer picture (because points are distributed over the ratio of goals conceeded compared to scored in a single match).
Click to expand...
This assumes people are not wilfully misunderstanding it 😁
 
Matnab said:
So the stat isn't the problem it's what people infer from it. xG was never intended as a tool to determine where teams 'deserve' to be. If you are creating a load of chances and missing them all then you don't 'deserve' to be anywhere other than where you are.

xG is not the problem, it's the conclusions people draw from it.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't claim to make any judgement about how good a team is. It's just a stat.
Click to expand...
Nailed it. It's just data, like all the other stats. How you interpret that data is up to you. For some reason the average fan takes this one isolated stat and elevates it to a God like status above all the others to simplify a quick conclusion. Football just doesn't work like that.
 
xG is a useful stat when used in conjunction with other stats or to look at general chance creation. There are much better metrics for finishing and for understanding how good a defense and goalkeeper are. Take post-shot expected goals, for instance - this is a stat that is much more useful to understand how good of shots a side is actually conceding - this takes into account the trajectory of the ball(where it is actually going while travelling to the goal and the speed at which it is travelling). We have the fourth-best post-shot xG(meaning our defense is set up very well to make shots difficult, regardless of where they come from - a high xG chance turns into a much lower post-shot xG because our defenders are well-positioned and affect the trajectory of the shot), while we are lower-half for xGA(per FBRef).

Again, stats are useful but in isolation they can be used to tell any story you want, really.
 
Last edited:
The only useful thing that this stat tells us that even if points were awared on xg scored- the mags would still be below our current position
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top