ap04

Of how many goals you deserve with the same quality, or how many you should score after 1000 games. Same as if you roll a dice, the actual outcome will be anything, the expected value (3.5) is what you deserve to get.

Far more representative than goals/points, which are just cr*p for reasons that should be obvious to everyone. For individual games it can give the wrong picture as it has several flaws eg. Ignores shot/goalkeeping quality - how wide the shot or how comfortable the save Goals should always count as "1" (perfect attacking/worst defending) Ignores disallowed goals and close offsides/no-penalties Ignores key blocked crosses/passes Counts several shots in same sequence more than once But combined with shots (with which there is usually good correlation) it's the safest bet if one hasn't watched a match. After a few games and over a season the above tend to even out and the table becomes quite reliable. The perfect metric is post-shot chances everything included (how close to a goal every phase was), this works well for a single team but for an entire league one needs to watch all games/highlights which is impractical. This is where xG tables become useful, basically other than following every team there is nothing better in the public domain.

This is skewed to an extent by the fact we were unlucky not to win just once last 17 (Saturday) compared to twice first 14 (Cambridge-Cheltenham); the Bolton red against versus the Orient red in favour; and more away games & slightly tougher schedule earlier on. Also form post-Oxford has been clearly worse than the first 14 you mentioned.

I see, so if say in athletics they start measuring in "goals" (perfect throw/jump 1 imperfect cr*p and everything in between 0) because it's more entertaining or the only practical way, you'll prefer it over the current system or your eyes'/a computer's rough estimate, because "it's what they use". Or, if after just three Premium Bond draws you earn nought or thousands that's all that matters in deciding how good they are, everything else such as expected value in the long run is "just a sideshow". Fair enough!

'The discrepancy between two metrics shows why the one I agree with is right', great argument there.

Posh last 3 xG 6.25-3.15 total shots ratio 62% Derby last 3 xG 1.85-2.04 total shots ratio 51%

Except we were lucky to win 3 of these (last two and Bristol, also Orient were down to 10 for much of the game), and not hard done by in any other than a point at Reading. These two seem be the most flattered by goals and results in the entire league.

As opposed to us peppering their goal with one chance every 45 minutes.

Well known football argot for "not deserved" (along with "hard fought" "gritty" "professional" "great fight/resilience/character/defending" "winning when not at one's best" etc.)

1 more chance than Lincoln, Derby fans: WAAAAA 1.5 more chances than Charlton (similar side), Derby fans: What a great away performance

Since when is 'on target' a good measure of how close the attempt is to a goal? The bulk of these are comfortable saves and not a threat at all, whereas more than half of near moments are narrow misses not covered by the keeper. In fact yesterday all of the big chances for either side other than the goal were off target ones.

It wasn't, it was decent and absolutely true to form. We have been precisely a +2 chances/game side (on the verge of automatics or just below), facing are a +0 side (genuine mid-table), away (-2 chances swing), result: absolutely even game (4 or 5 chances apiece overall), which is exactly what happened. What on earth were people expecting? It's the same as those popular "our form is stupendous" posts or those counting the goals saying we are evidently better than last year. Too much to expect football fans to see things logically without all sorts of biases kicking in.

That would be fine if you and some of those liking your post hadn't also thought Peterborough away was thoroughly deserved or a demolition job following this

So these were poor but Wigan we made them look poor? Except these are the league's top/5th/10th sides and Wigan just about the worst (and Port Vale was not even, watch the highlights). We had 5 chances more, one goal lead is about right. 3 or 4 goals would normally take 11 to 15 chances. https://footystats.org/england/efl-league-one/xg https://footballxg.com/xg-league-tables https://theanalyst.com/eu/2023/08/league-one-stats-2023-24-opta

Easily among the 4 worst in the division if not the worst according to xG (and with just 2 days' rest for all it's worth). Northampton-Blackpool-Vale were even better and Burton-Peterborough-Exeter-Orient as good (assuming Wigan are that poor).

Last year we deserved 2 more wins at this stage, this year 2 fewer. 3rd best team on both occasions.

Luck = whether the better team wins, refereeing doesn't come into it.

How strange, all xG tables suggest we should draw v Oxford (marginal advantage Oxford), draw v Posh (marginal advantage Derby) and beat Wigan = 5 points. If you go by the balance of the reverse fixtures instead (you shouldn't), we lose to both Oxford and Wigan and draw the other one or win at a stretch (1 to 3 points). Our own recent form, 3 great games 3 average ones (or 4/5 apiece). Now of course we may get fewer or more depending on luck or form on the day, but where exactly does this notion of "9 points" stem from?

You couldn't be more wrong. All a scoreline tells you is 1.the minimum number of big moments each side had 2.the probabilities for each side deserving to win (or a draw being fair).

In the same way that you can have different scales for defining say earthquakes, but you would never think biggest earthquake=1 the rest/none=0 is better. Oh absolutely. First, the difference in quality between near misses and goals is very little (inches, split-seconds, the bounce of the ball on the day). Second, goals are a rubbish sample compared to chances. Say you have two equal teams scoring the same in the long run, and not at constant but quite random intervals, split that into blocks of about 2 goals and it's clear what you'll get in each is some random nonsense. Missing the fact that overall the defending was much poorer than the opposition -and same for the attacking- for allowing the chance in the first place. The luck element is that this was not at all reflected in the result.

If you start factoring in the man less we were - but there was a red v Port Vale last year to the same effect. Basically 2 near-goal events -or goals or the equivalent sum of lesser ones- more than the opposition worthy of a win (the threshold for win probability to go over 50% and for the chances/chances per goal constant to round up to 1). Nothing subjective or opinion-based, just far more precise. You can equally toss a coin a handful of times, just look at the outcome and conclude it was rigged or there is a skill to it (or you can argue that would be superficial and a much bigger sample is needed). Or you watch a football match, keep just 2 big moments and dismiss 10 other moments that were about the same quality-wise like they never happened, your indicator will be more reliable for sure.

Comparing tables is really superficial considering after 18 games a team is on average 4 points better/worse off where they deserve to be and upwards of 10 max. A more accurate assessment would be: 2022 Lucky: Oxford (2) Barnsley (2) MK Dons (2) Unlucky: Charlton (1) Fleetwood (2) Lincoln (1) Port Vale (1) Exeter (2) Morecambe (2) Portsmouth (2) Deserved points: +5 (34) Chances net (red card-adjusted): +1.8 pg Chances/goals scored ratio 4, conceded 3.8 2023 Lucky: Fleetwood (2) Peterborough (2) Portsmouth (1) Blackpool (2) Bristol (2) Unlucky: Wigan (1) Oxford (1) Cambridge (2) Cheltenham (2) Deserved points: -3 (30) Chances net: +1.72 pg Chances/goals scored ratio 3.2, conceded 4.4 Marginally worse and considerably luckier this year.