Jump to content

xG

Day

By Day
in Football Forum

 Share

xG Stat  

43 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Comrade 86
Comrade 86

I've booked you lads a room. Thank me later ?

nottingram
nottingram

Not sure how people can moan about it and then happily go about quoting shots and shots on target - if anything it can just add a little more context to those two particular stats. In a one off g

AndyinLiverpool
AndyinLiverpool

With fancy talk like that, nobody's going to accuse you of being thick or obtuse.

Posted Images

Jubbs

Jubbs

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

XG is now more telling than total shots on goal

Exactly this.

Imagine a player has a weak shot target from 40 yards that a 90 year old could've saved.
vs
A 6 yard shot where the keeper makes a wonderful reaction save to it.

Per some posters logic, these are exactly the same as they both count as a shot on target. 

If you look at the xG over the Lampard season it shows we were massively overperforming and created few high chance goal scoring opportunities, being bailed out by long shots from Wilson. We reverted to the mean and it came back to bite us on the backside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoyMac5

RoyMac5

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

Exactly this.

Imagine a player has a weak shot target from 40 yards that a 90 year old could've saved.
vs
A 6 yard shot where the keeper makes a wonderful reaction save to it.

Per some posters logic, these are exactly the same as they both count as a shot on target. 

If you look at the xG over the Lampard season it shows we were massively overperforming and created few high chance goal scoring opportunities, being bailed out by long shots from Wilson. We reverted to the mean and it came back to bite us on the backside.

I didn't need xG to know that, but I expect it keeps someone in a job. Something else for the media to harp on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndyinLiverpool

AndyinLiverpool

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

Exactly this.

Imagine a player has a weak shot target from 40 yards that a 90 year old could've saved.
vs
A 6 yard shot where the keeper makes a wonderful reaction save to it.

Per some posters logic, these are exactly the same as they both count as a shot on target. 

If you look at the xG over the Lampard season it shows we were massively overperforming and created few high chance goal scoring opportunities, being bailed out by long shots from Wilson. We reverted to the mean and it came back to bite us on the backside.

Do you really need a statistician to tell you that?

It seems to me that xG is just a way for gamblers to think they are being clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IlsonDerby

IlsonDerby

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, BondJovi said:

What these stats can never take into consideration is the human nature of it all. Has that chance fallen to an inform or out of form striker? Does this chance go up if playing against a former club? If you miss many chances, the pressure can build as the game goes on. Does that chance later on get the same rating, even though it is more pressured?

 

The xG stat literally does take into account who it falls to ? Hourihanes goal has a much lower xG if it’s Curtis Davies running on to it in the box! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I didn't need xG to know that, but I expect it keeps someone in a job. Something else for the media to harp on about.

But that’s precisely the point. XG now paints a picture for those who don’t know that. For those who haven’t watched the game.

Like I mentioned earlier, I didn’t watch the Bolton game as I was working.

XG doesn’t tell me if it’s a free-flowing game or a scrappy one, but that stat alongside final third entries gave me enough to suggest Derby were shading proceedings while creating the better chances.

If you’re a gambler and not watching the game, XG likely has value. For casuals like me, It also has value when checking to see whether our rivals are playing well or fluking results.

Plymouth, for instance, regularly have a high XG. Stats would suggest they fully deserve to be top by some way.

There was also an interesting stat that showed WBA had a higher XG than their opponent in almost every game (and on average the 2nd highest in the league) despite being in the bottom 3 when Bruce was sacked. Next manager comes in, makes a little tweak and now they’re in the top six having won something like 10 of their last 12 games.

Edited by Bris Vegas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PistoldPete

PistoldPete

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Do you really need a statistician to tell you that?

It seems to me that xG is just a way for gamblers to think they are being clever.

So again Andy you seem to think this is people thinking they are clever when they are not? Like I said before there is a reason Brentford are in the Premier and we are not. Maybe they could have just sent scouts to watch games but they didn’t . They used stats to assess players.  This sort of thing works. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndyinLiverpool

AndyinLiverpool

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So again Andy you seem to think this is people thinking they are clever when they are not? Like I said before there is a reason Brentford are in the Premier and we are not. Maybe they could have just sent scouts to watch games but they didn’t . They used stats to assess players.  This sort of thing works. 


 

How do we know that's what Brentford did? How do we know they didn't send scouts?

There are a whole load of reasons why we are not in the premier league. Leadership at the club wasn't inept just because they didn't use xG to sign players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PistoldPete

PistoldPete

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

How do we know that's what Brentford did? How do we know they didn't send scouts?

There are a whole load of reasons why we are not in the premier league. Leadership at the club wasn't inept just because they didn't use xG to sign players. 

Well for a start when we signed Jacob Butterfield I couldn’t remember seeing him play so I looked his stats up and compared them to Jeff Hendrick. They didn’t look better than Hendrick who wasn’t always starting so I wondered why we were spending g so much on a player who was no better than a young lad we already had developed for nothing. 
 

nothing clever about that but for someone who never saw Butterfield play not a bad call really. 
 

it’s been well documented that Brentford use this kind of data .. their owner runs a data company. Oh and I didn’t say they didn’t send scouts .. I don’t know whether they did . But I said they didn’t just send scouts. 

Edited by PistoldPete
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LazloW

LazloW

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don’t really know what xG is or what it’s for, so this may come across as a grumpy old Luddite talking, but…

Football is art; xG seems like another attempt to turn it into some form of (pseudo) science.  You can’t distill a football match into stats; they always lie (including possession stats, shots on target, shots off target, corners, fouls and so on and so forth). Stats can’t describe the essence of a match, or the inherent subjectivity of what constitutes good or bad play, who deserved to win etc. . Might help give an impression but they tell me nothing about what truly happened.  

The stats also can’t tell you whether you’ve been entertained or not or whether you’ve enjoyed the match - though I think some people actually now decide that based on stats alone! 

It’s also (probably) another clever way of monetising statistics, finding a way of filling 24 hour sports media ‘content’, generating clicks on social media (case in point) and giving armchair moneyballers and coaches another opportunity to show how clever they are. 

I’d say put it in the bin alongside parachute payments, the new drop ball rule, the new interpretations of offside, referees who don’t understand what a foul or foul throw is, pundits who don’t understand what a foul is (contact does not always equate to a foul!), players having to go off after having the physio on,  five subs and well, pretty much every ‘innovation’ since about 1990!!

However, as with all those things, I imagine it is yet another minor annoyance that is destined to stay.  

As I said, grumpy old man!

Edited by LazloW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jubbs

Jubbs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Plymouth, for instance, regularly have a high XG. Stats would suggest they fully deserve to be top by some way.

 

Agree with most of what you said apart from this. 

Plymouth actually are overperforming their open play xG by nearly 20 goals(!!!!) leaving them around 5th highest xG for. Defensively they have the 5th worst xGA, their current form isn't sustainable and could see them drop off, reverting towards the mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkFruitsRam7

DarkFruitsRam7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Often wonder if it is the name that is the problem. Like if it was called “Chance Quality”, which is effectively what it is, would it generate the same reaction

Exactly this.

Weirdly enough, and without wishing to start a debate, I think the term "white privilege" suffers from the exact same problem. It's a valid concept that's pitched horribly and alienates the sceptical people that you're trying to convince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...