Is expectation too high .

[DiggerB]

13 minutes ago, Curtains said:

So what exactly is xG? Essentially, Expected Goals (xG) is a metric that's intended to measure the probability of a shot resulting in a goal. The purpose is to show when a player should be expected to score from a particular opportunity, by basically rating how good of a goal-scoring opportunity it is.

 

DOES NOT TAKE INtO ACCOUNT UNEXPECTED RABBIT HOLES 🐇 HOWEVER Lol 😂 

Sky have really zapped the fun out of football haven’t they!

[alram]

It’s nothing to do with sky clubs we’re doing it long before sky started using it, I think it’s a good measure of the way games go. It won’t paint the full picture but it does a better job of all the other stats like possession or shots on goal

Edited September 7, 2023 by alram

[Curtains]

16 minutes ago, alram said:

It’s nothing to do with sky clubs we’re doing it long before sky started using it, I think it’s a good measure of the way games go. It won’t paint the full picture but it does a better job of all the other stats like possession or shots on goal

So if you have a high xG do you win most games. 
 

[Curtains]

xG total in a match doesn't necessarily imply that they should've won the game. xG is only measuring chance quality and not the expected outcome of the game. Another misconception is in the literal interpretation of the metric name.

https://statsbomb.com/soccer-metrics/expected-goals-xg-explained/

Edited September 7, 2023 by Curtains
Added link

[DRBee]

58 minutes ago, alram said:

It’s nothing to do with sky clubs we’re doing it long before sky started using it, I think it’s a good measure of the way games go. It won’t paint the full picture but it does a better job of all the other stats like possession or shots on goal

Just because it produce numbers with complicated maths doesn't mean it has any value. I believe it misrepresents a game- for example  a moment of brilliance from a goal scorer is undervalued by xg. shots , on and off target is more useful, and in the end the final score is what counts.

[bcnram]

4 minutes ago, DRBee said:

Just because it produce numbers with complicated maths doesn't mean it has any value. I believe it misrepresents a game- for example  a moment of brilliance from a goal scorer is undervalued by xg. shots , on and off target is more useful, and in the end the final score is what counts.

Personally I think the best way is to have relied on your own judgment, rather than relying on someone else telling you how good a chance was. 
the positive I suppose is that if you like statistics, it might be interesting. 

[Archied]

41 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Personally I think the best way is to have relied on your own judgment, rather than relying on someone else telling you how good a chance was. 
the positive I suppose is that if you like statistics, it might be interesting. 

A chance falls to a player on his wrong foot , headed chance for a player not great with his head v a good header of the ball , player clear through on goal who struggles with that kind of situation but his scoring prowess is much better in other areas ,it is so so so subjective ,

as I say it’s fine if you enjoy this stuff and it has SOME value in SOME areas but what we have here is posters posting this stuff as un arguable evidence the manager should be sacked and anybody who doesn’t agree and calls it for what it is just doesn’t understand , if you were to go with this stuff managers would be sacked every week ( as if it isn’t bad enough now ) and players would be lambasted and packed off to the reserves or drummed out every other game ,

its a human game played by humans who make mistake and equally are great over 90 minutes being treated like it’s a computer game , derby could win the next game , confidence rise ,player click and go on a 10 game run of wins as could pretty much most clubs in this division 🤷🏻‍♂️

[trappatoni]

It's a useful stat.  If your xG exceeds the opponent's on a regular basis then you should be winning more than you lose and if you don't your finishing is poor.   Unlike Curtains I'd say if you have the higher xG then finishing and GKing being equal you should be winning the game - obviously finishing and GKing isn't fixed - Kane can miss sitters and I've scored a few worldies.   

 

I believe (feel free to correct me)  it is only measured for shots on goal though (on or off target) so if you are 6 yards out and square it that wouldn't produce any xG.

[Foreveram]

9 minutes ago, trappatoni said:

It's a useful stat.  If your xG exceeds the opponent's on a regular basis then you should be winning more than you lose and if you don't your finishing is poor.   Unlike Curtains I'd say if you have the higher xG then finishing and GKing being equal you should be winning the game - obviously finishing and GKing isn't fixed - Kane can miss sitters and I've scored a few worldies.   

 

I believe (feel free to correct me)  it is only measured for shots on goal though (on or off target) so if you are 6 yards out and square it that wouldn't produce any xG.

So if that’s true ( I have no idea) if someone is a yard from goal with an empty net, swings and misses the ball completely, are you saying that’s not even registered as a chance.

[DavesaRam]

22 hours ago, Curtains said:

That’s so untrue 

Why is it untrue?

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, DavesaRam said:

Why is it untrue?

Because Warne doesn’t play anti football mate 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Curtains

[duncanjwitham]

None of these stats "matters" in the sense that them being high (or low) has any intrinsic value.  Nobody is going out specifically to maximise their xG stat today.  But that's not the point of them, it's to tell you about what's happening on the pitch without having to watch every single minute played by every player in every game ever, and ideally without any bias in there..  And people are absolutely right in that an individual stat doesn't necessarily determine the outcome of a game.  Just because you have a high xG it doesn't guarantee you win any given game. You can win without having many shots, or without having much possession, or without creating many good chances.  But if almost all of these metrics are lower that you'd like, it's almost certainly a sign that something is going wrong somewhere.  You aren't going to win many games of football if you don't create chances and you don't keep the ball and you don't complete many of your passes and so on.

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

but what we have here is posters posting this stuff as un arguable evidence the manager should be sacked and anybody who doesn’t agree and calls it for what it is just doesn’t understand

Have we? There was one poster who said they presented some stats "to show others how bad we are at the moment", that's the only comment I can find than even comes close to what you're suggesting. They might believe the manager needs sacking but that's not an example of some claiming that the stats themselves prove it above beyond any other observation.

It was a bit 'well, duh'  I suppose  -  The stats say we're average to poor. What we're watching is average to poor. So yeah, the stats probably weren't really worth mentioning and weren't showing people anything they didn't know. I do get that there are some people who over-rely on stats to make their point.

However, it (and anything else said on here) hardly warrants you going off the deep end and launching into a series of passive aggressive, sneeringly mocking posts where you dismiss any degree of stat use you deem excessive as some modern invention promoted by nerd in a bedroom who've never seen sight of a football pitch.

Nor the stuff concerning the idea that there's there's a whole bunch of people out there telling you that you're wrong because you're using what you see in person rather than statistics.  Like you and your way of thinking is under threat.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[MadAmster]

18 hours ago, Archied said:

 

when I feel it’s time for warne to go I will know and it won’t be stats that tell me , it will be goals for , goals against , points gained and lost and how I feel sitting in the ground

Ah but, yes but, no but..... aren't those stats? 😉

... apart from the sitting bit, of course.

[SSD]

I don't think the expectations are too high at all. The bookies and supporters saw us finish just outside the play offs with a bundled together squad and you would have thought with the investment made behind the scenes in recruitment and having a manager with plenty of league one promotions, we would definitely be challenging. 

What I am really surprised at is we've brought in Mark Thomas who recruited upcoming talent to Oxford, yet our management team have decided to target older, more experienced players on higher wages. Now I'm wondering whether this is purely down to the restrictions in place by the EFL that we're still unable to target younger players in lower leagues and fees are out of the question entirely. It's these contradictions behind the scenes which does give me cause for concern. I don't get the impression Warne particularly wants to use youth unless it is an absolute last resort. The best teams always have a nice blend of youth, prime and experienced footballers. I do fear we have too many experienced players causing a lacking energy on the pitch and why we do seem to struggle against teams who will happily pass the ball around our players.

I am under the impression the resources are there for the manager to have a very successful season, resulting in high expectations. With a dross style of football and a stubborn attitude to change his ways to adapt to the players strengths currently on the field, ultimately that will be his downfall. The best managers utilise every ounce of quality from their squads. I think we've got a very competitive squad on paper vs the rest of the league. I don't think we'll see the best out of it under Warne sadly.

[ap04]

2 hours ago, DRBee said:

Just because it produce numbers with complicated maths doesn't mean it has any value.

It's all that matters performance-wise (not xG which as you said has flaws but the 'perfect' metric including execution and other major events).

2 hours ago, DRBee said:

I believe it misrepresents a game

But nowhere near as much as goals (binary ie. useless). You'll always back xG or shots over goals to reflect the opponents' standing in a  game, or for A>B B>C A>C to check out.

2 hours ago, DRBee said:

 in the end the final score is what counts.

All the final score gives you is probabilities of who was the better side (if any). Which for draws and 1-goal wins are less than 50%. You might as well ignore it.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Because Warne doesn’t play anti football mate 

True, anti-football relies on shape and consistency in defence, and being clinical with the few chances you may get to work.

Warneball is pure chaos, no control, no conservation of energy, just lots of running about either chasing the ball or getting the ball up and down the pitch as quickly as possible. You know, the kind of football I used to play in the park when I was 9.

Edited September 7, 2023 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, ap04 said:

It's all that matters performance-wise (not xG which as you said has flaws but the 'perfect' metric including execution and other major events).

But nowhere near as much as goals (binary ie. useless). You'll always back xG or shots over goals to reflect the opponents' standing in a  game, or for A>B B>C A>C to check out.

All the final score gives you is probabilities of who was the better side (if any). Which for draws and 1-goal wins are less than 50%. You might as well ignore it.

Now I’m confused, did we not get promoted under wee billy 😂

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Kokosnuss said:

Have we? There was one poster who said they presented some stats "to show others how bad we are at the moment", that's the only comment I can find than even comes close to what you're suggesting. They might believe the manager needs sacking but that's not an example of some claiming that the stats themselves prove it above beyond any other observation.

It was a bit 'well, duh'  I suppose  -  The stats say we're average to poor. What we're watching is average to poor. So yeah, the stats probably weren't really worth mentioning and weren't showing people anything they didn't know. I do get that there are some people who over-rely on stats to make their point.

However, it (and anything else said on here) hardly warrants you going off the deep end and launching into a series of passive aggressive, sneeringly mocking posts where you dismiss any degree of stat use you deem excessive as some modern invention promoted by nerd in a bedroom who've never seen sight of a football pitch.

Nor the stuff concerning the idea that there's there's a whole bunch of people out there telling you that you're wrong because you're using what you see in person rather than statistics.  Like you and your way of thinking is under threat.

I was replying to two posters in particular ( you wernt one of them ) and if you read back both but particularly one are arguing it’s time for warne to go and openly posts that he’s posting the stats to prove his point , not really sure what’s wrong with pulling the stats angle apart in answer to them and they are plenty able to give it back and have done , have I missed the bit where this is no longer a forum where opinions clash and people give it out and take it back as long as it’s not offensive or sweary?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Archied

[duncanjwitham]

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

I was replying to two posters in particular ( you wernt one of them ) and if you read back both but particularly one are arguing it’s time for warne to go and openly posts that he’s posting the stats to prove his point , not really sure what’s wrong with pulling the stats angle apart in answer to them and they are plenty able to give it back and have done , have I missed the bit where this is no longer a forum where opinions clash and people give it out and take it back as long as it’s offensive or sweary?

You basically said earlier that when it's time for Warne to go you will just know it's the time, you'll feel it.  All the people quoting stats are saying is, "I feel it's time for Warne to go, and here are some stats that I think back up my opinion".  They aren't saying sack him entirely *because* of the stats, they're just trying to support what they think with some evidence.

Obviously it's fine to argue that you don't think the stats are important, or that they don't say what people think they say etc.  But it kind of comes across (IMO anyway) that you are arguing that people shouldn't post evidence for their claims,  we only want baseless accusations and evidence-free assertions in here please.  That's why I think people are getting a bit worked up about it.