3 hours ago, mattbwfc19 said:

essentially yes, it means the quality of the chances created and the probability of them being scored means that we should have scored 4, so pretty much we created enough chances to finish the game off but our finishing is crap.

For reference, I think the xG of a penalty is 0.75, as there is a 75% chance that the taker will score his penalty, however, this doesn't take into account the quality of the goalkeeper and the quality of the attacker taking the penalty, so who knows how reliable it is.

Presumably that applies in all situations, not just pens.

As above though, a reflection that the finishing was a bit off, but also that the keeping was very good.

 

Lies , damn lies and statistics. 

5 hours ago, Traf said:

Does it meant that the way we played, we should have scored 4, but didn't?

Suggests we played well, but couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.

We were expected to score over 4 goals but had to settle for a double rebound off the chest in the 98th minute

30 minutes ago, Zico said:

We were expected to score over 4 goals but had to settle for a double rebound off the chest in the 98th minute

Mega Loloz

Does it take into treat all 3 chances in the space of 5 seconds on Saturday as individual chances?

6 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Does it take into treat all 3 chances in the space of 5 seconds on Saturday as individual chances?

Has an 'xG' stat ever actually matched a scoreline? Unless/until they start awarding points for 'xG' numbers, it's utterly meaningless bollocks.

Edited October 29, 20241 yr by Cheese

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Has an 'xG' stat ever actually matched a scoreline? Unless/until they start awarding points for 'xG' numbers, it's utterly meaningless bollocks.

Can only see that it has 2 uses;

1. As a coach, if your xG constantly outweighs your actual goals, it might suggest you either need to buy better finishers or work on the finishing ability of your team. Similarly, if you concede more than your xG, it may suggest goalkeeper position is weak

2. A manager clinging on to their job can use it as a source of hope in interviews that they hope suppprters and fans will buy into.

1 minute ago, thebells said:

Can only see that it has 2 uses;

1. As a coach, if your xG constantly outweighs your actual goals, it might suggest you either need to buy better finishers or work on the finishing ability of your team. Similarly, if you concede more than your xG, it may suggest goalkeeper position is weak

2. A manager clinging on to their job can use it as a source of hope in interviews that they hope suppprters and fans will buy into.

As I said, utterly meaningless bollocks.

Would it not be easier just to count how many chances we create and compare that to how many we score?

 

28 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Does it take into treat all 3 chances in the space of 5 seconds on Saturday as individual chances?

I think it does. So you look more dominant by fluffing a couple of easy chances and converting the 3rd attempt than if you'd stuck in in first time. 

i'm not having that

if a penalty is 0.75, then those 3 efforts at the end were 2.25, minimum

12 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Would it not be easier just to count how many chances we create and compare that to how many we score?

I suppose xG is an attempt to separate whether it’s a chance or a chance

I get why people don’t like XG.

Its AA time… I like it, there I’ve admitted it 🤣

I always find it quite funny how folk get quite upset about it.

For me it’s just another stat I like analysing - I suppose you either like stats or not.

For the record I don’t place that much importance on it that it justifies defeats or poor performances and there shouldn’t be an over-reliance/emphasis on it.

And there’s so much more to it that I don’t understand. I think it would be a bit naive to dismiss it, as plenty of coaches and analysts use xG to help them analyse games, clubs, and players.

12 minutes ago, Casino said:

i'm not having that

if a penalty is 0.75, then those 3 efforts at the end were 2.25, minimum

I've just read more into it (it's that or doing work) and it seems to depend whether they're reported "adjusted xg" where the best individual chance is taken from a series of rebounds, or "cumulative xg" where all the shots are counted.

Apparently the former is better for telling you which team had better overall chances, and the latter is better for assessing finishing ability of each team.

Wish I'd carried on working

36 minutes ago, Cheese said:

As I said, utterly meaningless bollocks.

Much like opinions on a football forum...

4 minutes ago, thebells said:

Much like opinions on a football forum...

Not quite. The opinions posted on football forums aren't regurgitated by Sky Sports etc. as though they're somehow useful.

the only number that matters is where you are in the table 

 

My xG is 5, every time

17 minutes ago, L/H White said:

the only number that matters is where you are in the table 

 

I’m not claiming you are saying this.

But it’s a good post to quote to say that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

You can see the value of XG while understanding that the only stats that really matter are goals and wins. 

Think most of it was developed for the betting world.

Remember Garrp telling us all about it many moons ago. It was pretty much his job to collect that kind of data and set odds for teams scoring etc.

37 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Think most of it was developed for the betting world.

Remember Garrp telling us all about it many moons ago. It was pretty much his job to collect that kind of data and set odds for teams scoring etc.

He’d love to tell you the xG of a corner. Even if he didn’t want to tell you, Sober Dan would beat it out of him. 

18 hours ago, Zico said:

We were expected to score over 4 goals but had to settle for a double rebound off the chest in the 98th minute

Makes it oh so sweeter though dunnit

29 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

He’d love to tell you the xG of a corner. Even if he didn’t want to tell you, Sober Dan would beat it out of him. 

xG of a corner is probably negative, as goals are rarely scored directly from a corner. 
Land it on someone's head and then it comes a positive number.

A penalty is 0.76 xG, as 76% are scored.

xg was massively important to explain why the bloke who'd just beat me at fifa was a scrawpy bastard.

 

Also, for similar reasons, to explain why man utd didn't deserve to win (less useful this season).

1 hour ago, Traf said:

xG of a corner is probably negative, as goals are rarely scored directly from a corner. 
Land it on someone's head and then it comes a positive number.

A penalty is 0.76 xG, as 76% are scored.

is that right...1 in 4 are missed?