• 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

SuperKevsLeftBoot said:
This footmob is a right load of shite.
We created 0 big chances yet brobbey scored literally through on goal? How is that not a big chance like??
Click to expand...

You can't say stuff like that man, everything is data driven these days apparently and you can't have an debate without some data shite being chucked in your face 😀

I recall watching Alt Ending and Connor Bromley talk about the United game and it was pointed out to Connor that statistically at least Hume had fared worse than Masuaku, even though (and Adingra didn't help) most people could see Masuaku had a poor game.

Guess who Regis hasn't played since though 😀 Statistics can help pinpoint stuff, but I'll continue to use my eyes as well.

*and I do really like Alt and some of the stuff he does.
 

Perryqhill said:
You can't say stuff like that man, everything is data driven these days apparently and you can't have an debate without some data shite being chucked in your face 😀

I recall watching Alt Ending and Connor Bromley talk about the United game and it was pointed out to Connor that statistically at least Hume had fared worse than Masuaku, even though (and Adingra didn't help) most people could see Masuaku had a poor game.

Guess who Regis hasn't played since though 😀 Statistics can help pinpoint stuff, but I'll continue to use my eyes as well.

*and I do really like Alt and some of the stuff he does.
Click to expand...
I like them two.

Yeah I don’t get it. They aren’t even accurate so what’s the point?
 
Undercover said:
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
Click to expand...
We have more shots against us than anyone else but they are all low value chances. Our average XG shot against us is the lowest in the league. Cumulatively they add up but basically they have no chamce of going in. Wr are defensively fantastic.
 
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
People get way too upset about it. It’s just another stat like corners, shots, possession.

It’s an indicator, and can be misleading sometimes. But I don’t get why people get so angry about it
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the stat itself so much as the way certain football hipster nerd types use it as the be all and end all stat. Particularly using it to say teams are "overperforming" and/or are in a "false position."
 
Always been a big follower of stats and xG. Interestingly his year is and Villa have massively thwarted xG predictions. Villa you can put down to an insane level of finishing.

We're a different case and this graph that Andy on here (sorry can't remember exact username) posted on X tells ab interesting story.

You must be logged on to see media items

Basically the segment we sit in indicates that - yes - we do concede plenty of shots, but the shots are of low xG quality. So essentially we're happy conceding lots of shots from areas that are difficult to score from (outside of the box whilst we have plenty of men back) which then accumulates to a high xGA, but this number doesn't tell the full story.

There have been various sides over the years across all leagues that don't necessarily follow the data, we look to be another addition to that list, largely down to the effort of the lads getting behind the ball and back into their positions.
 
LeedsCattermole said:
Always been a big follower of stats and xG. Interestingly his year is and Villa have massively thwarted xG predictions. Villa you can put down to an insane level of finishing.

We're a different case and this graph that Andy on here (sorry can't remember exact username) posted on X tells ab interesting story.

You must be logged on to see media items

Basically the segment we sit in indicates that - yes - we do concede plenty of shots, but the shots are of low xG quality. So essentially we're happy conceding lots of shots from areas that are difficult to score from (outside of the box whilst we have plenty of men back) which then accumulates to a high xGA, but this number doesn't tell the full story.

There have been various sides over the years across all leagues that don't necessarily follow the data, we look to be another addition to that list, largely down to the effort of the lads getting behind the ball and back into their positions.
Click to expand...
Not ideal for Burnley there :lol:
 
In xG if the ball is rolled along the box and the striker just has a tap in, keeper is nowhere to be seen, open goal type affair but doesn’t actually touch the ball, does that go down as 0.00 xG? But if he blasted it owa or wide it would be something like 0.85 xG?
 
LeedsCattermole said:
Always been a big follower of stats and xG. Interestingly his year is and Villa have massively thwarted xG predictions. Villa you can put down to an insane level of finishing.

We're a different case and this graph that Andy on here (sorry can't remember exact username) posted on X tells ab interesting story.

You must be logged on to see media items

Basically the segment we sit in indicates that - yes - we do concede plenty of shots, but the shots are of low xG quality. So essentially we're happy conceding lots of shots from areas that are difficult to score from (outside of the box whilst we have plenty of men back) which then accumulates to a high xGA, but this number doesn't tell the full story.

There have been various sides over the years across all leagues that don't necessarily follow the data, we look to be another addition to that list, largely down to the effort of the lads getting behind the ball and back into their positions.
Click to expand...
My interpretation is that this shows that we frustrate teams who are expecting to beat us and forcing them into speculative efforts from bad positions because they can't create good openings. Which is what I see when watching us play.
 
connolly_31 said:
In xG if the ball is rolled along the box and the striker just has a tap in, keeper is nowhere to be seen, open goal type affair but doesn’t actually touch the ball, does that go down as 0.00 xG? But if he blasted it owa or wide it would be something like 0.85 xG?
Click to expand...
Yeah that's 0 as there was no shot
Useful_Idiot said:
My interpretation is that this shows that we frustrate teams who are expecting to beat us and forcing them into speculative efforts from bad positions because they can't create good openings. Which is what I see when watching us play.
Click to expand...
It's also why we had huge xG numbers under Mowbray but couldn't score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top