Has there been a worse home performance in recent memory?

[TWar]

Just now, Dman said:

Genuine questions, given that XG is calculated based on an average of a group of shots from each position, does it factor in quality of the striker? 
 

If not, it’s completely fucking pointless. 

Of the top 7 scorers in the league only one is overperforming xG, so no its not.

If it was as heavily influenced by striker quality then the top strikers would regularly overperform but they don't. Not Kane, not Salah, not Ronaldo.

[Bob76]

9 minutes ago, TWar said:

No. We had two fluke games. And this would have been a fluke too if it ended up any higher.

But statistically.......

[Badger]

8 minutes ago, TWar said:

It could have been 10, it just was very unlikely to be and in actuality the most likely situation was less than they scored. I'm not arguing 10 was impossible, just that saying we are lucky it wasn't is bollocks.

And yeah, obviously it doesn't change the result, but we aren't aiming to change the result we are analysing the game for fun. And the most accurate statistical analysis is that if the chances had been finished to an average level it would be 4-1 or 5-1 and "worst home result in recent memory" is a big overreaction.

Not sure analysing yesterday's match is "fun".  On that showing I'd say we were fortunate Chelsea took their foot off the pedal/relented with half an hour to go, so not sure it is bollocks to say we were lucky it wasn't another 9 or 10.

Another stat is that over the last two seasons we have lost a single game each season by more than 6, not sure what that does to the statistical analysis, and if that skews the data. 

Fully accept this is an interesting field for you, so don't let old dinosaurs like me detract from it. I'll leave it there for now, but please feel free to pm me when xG appears in the league table along with GD and issues like promotion, relegation and European qualification depend on it.

[Badger]

I remember Lawrie in the 1970's when someone on BBC mentioned shots on target ... and responding along the lines of, and if the striker hits it from about the halfway line and it bounces three time before it reaches the goalkeeper who catches it, is that a 'shot on target' ?

[Whitey Grandad]

13 minutes ago, TWar said:

No. We had two fluke games. And this would have been a fluke too if it ended up any higher.

No, it wouldn’t have been a fluke. XG can only consider the shots that were actually taken. It can never take account of the shots that might have been taken. Chelsea took their foot off the throttle (and we were being well and truly throttled) and had they wanted to or had they needed to they could take turned the screw even further. Fortunately for us, out of respect or out of desire to play within themselves, they chose to play out the last half hour without over exerting themselves.

XG can only consider the probabilities of what actually took place and not what could have taken place and is consequently a meaningless concept.

[Dorchester Saint]

We’ve lost 9-0 twice in very recent memory, the title of this thread is ridiculous….

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Dorchester Saint said:

We’ve lost 9-0 twice in very recent memory, the title of this thread is ridiculous….

Only one of those was at home

For me, the performance yesterday was on a differ level of awfulness to the Leicesters game. In that one there were a couple of mitigations, an unjust red card, everything they hit seemed to fly into the goal. Chelsea were just operating on a different planet. It was as though they were playing a side from two or three divisions below themselves.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

A team at the upper end of the pool of quality that the figures are drawn from scored 6, when it was expected, from those opportunities, that they would score 4.4 ( from a wider, and generally less talented pool, although it probably wouldn't be a massive difference. Unless that understat has done it for individuals).

While Chelsea still had to put in some work to win the game, they clearly had a few more gears to move up if they really wanted to. They had a plan and expoited weaknesses in our tactics without being countered.

We failed to react tactically (or any other way) to their approach. That's been one of the damning things when things like this happen. We have a playbook. We have automatons that play to that playbook. If it goes wrong, and it's not in there, we're stuffed. The players don't seem capable of changing anything on the pitch. I get the feeling, even with a game going horribly wrong, Ralph would be upset that people weren't following his instructions.

So 4.4 from the chances created. But with the knowledge that they could have created even more chances, if they had decided to switch it up a bit. They also took their foot off a very comfortable win for at least the last 30mins.  That's what isn't being captured by xG. Which is why it's just one of a growing suite of x numbers to try and analyse various parts and positions of the game.

Two flukes, and another fluke seems like a lot of flukes.

[Dman]

51 minutes ago, TWar said:

Of the top 7 scorers in the league only one is overperforming xG, so no its not.

If it was as heavily influenced by striker quality then the top strikers would regularly overperform but they don't. Not Kane, not Salah, not Ronaldo.

Doesn’t really answer my question. 
 

My point, was that the chance (header) that Werner missed from 10 yards would be harder and less likely for a L2 player to score than say, Ronaldo or any other premier league striker… especially those worth £50m. 

[Dman]

38 minutes ago, Dorchester Saint said:

We’ve lost 9-0 twice in very recent memory, the title of this thread is ridiculous….

I don’t know if you watched yesterday, but IMO, it was equal to if not worse than both of those performances. 

[TWar]

1 minute ago, Dman said:

Doesn’t really answer my question. 
 

My point, was that the chance (header) that Werner missed from 10 yards would be harder and less likely for a L2 player to score than say, Ronaldo or any other premier league striker… especially those worth £50m. 

It's qualified in similar level leagues, I believe understat just uses prem. 

Within the league there isn't much variance between an Adams and a Kane for example, Adams actually is performing better with regards to goals vs xG.

[nta786]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

Modern xG uses a post-shot algorithm than predicts significantly more accurately, the understat has been shown to be within 2 standard deviations across a controlled sample set. This first iteration has been improved upon significantly.

The failing to predict a high scoring game isn't a flaw with the system, its because high scoring games are inherently unlikely, they are freak occurances over a certain point. It's why people saying we were lucky to not see double figures are talking nonsense. The prem has never seen a double figures game so those saying its lucky it didn't happen are saying we are lucky we didn't have the worst defensive display in premier league history. Which is obviously objectively pretty silly.

If you mean by one team then yes no team has ever scored 10 in one match but we have had 6 games in the PL where 10 or more goals have been scored.

Anyway, I’m not entirely disputing what you say and yes I agree high scoring matches are incredibly rare but what I want to say, and as the article says: “xG should be used as indicative and supportive information for decision making purposes and generating opinions rather than a finite answer to the performance of a team or player.”

What seems to be happening is that xG is seen largely as the be all and end all and taken as gospel.

There are plenty of other stats we can use out there, not just those which try to suit ones respective narrative.

[Dorchester Saint]

17 hours ago, Dman said:

I don’t know if you watched yesterday, but IMO, it was equal to if not worse than both of those performances. 

I did….we conceded 6 goals rather than 9 thanks to Fraser Forster performing well in goal….so a better performance than both 9-0’s 

[TWar]

17 hours ago, nta786 said:

If you mean by one team then yes no team has ever scored 10 in one match but we have had 6 games in the PL where 10 or more goals have been scored.

Anyway, I’m not entirely disputing what you say and yes I agree high scoring matches are incredibly rare but what I want to say, and as the article says: “xG should be used as indicative and supportive information for decision making purposes and generating opinions rather than a finite answer to the performance of a team or player.”

What seems to be happening is that xG is seen largely as the be all and end all and taken as gospel.

There are plenty of other stats we can use out there, not just those which try to suit ones respective narrative.

I do agree with this. xG is definitely overused for general team performance and when I do my stat posts I tend to use lots of different ones. In this case, however, where the question is "given the chances, was 6-0 a fair score" xG is basically designed for that question.

But yeah, its certainly a fair point that xG isn't the only or even normally the best stat to analyse a team in a vacuum.

[Chez]

On 10/04/2022 at 20:51, Dman said:

Genuine questions, given that XG is calculated based on an average of a group of shots from each position, does it factor in quality of the striker? 
 

If not, it’s completely fucking pointless. 

does it factor in the state of game (lot easier tucking away a chance at 6-0 up than 1-0), `size' of game, form and confidence of player, timing of chance (tiredness must effect things), whether it was on a players good foot, the specific skillset of the player?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

does it factor in the state of game (lot easier tucking away a chance at 6-0 up than 1-0), `size' of game, form and confidence of player, timing of chance (tiredness must effect things), whether it was on a players good foot, the specific skillset of the player?

Their sixth goal involved three shots in succession the first two of which were saved brilliantly by Forster before Mount slammed home the third. How does XG handle a situation like that since Mount was only able to latch onto the loose ball as a direct result of the previous two shots?

[Saint Without a Halo]

On 09/04/2022 at 22:26, Saint Billy said:

My memory is not so good now but I remember Leeds thrashing us by 8 goals in the Channon days  and god they ran rings round us. Watford gave us a big thumping once but can't remember when that was. 

Was 7-0 v Revies Leeds in the 8-0 was at Goodison the year before both early 70s

[egg]

9 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 How does XG handle a situation like that since Mount was only able to latch onto the loose ball as a direct result of the previous two shots?

It doesn't and it can't. That's part of the reason that xG is such a nonsense - it doesn't factor in the lottery that is the reality of football, ie someone getting in the way, a worldy save, a foul, anything spontaneous or that otherwise just happens. It's nonsense. 

[tajjuk]

LOL this conversation reminds me of the Moneyball film where all the old baseball scouts rail against the statistics because of their supposed superior 'knowledge and experience'. 

XG is not a nonsense, hence why its literally being used by professional football clubs, amongst thousands of over statistics and used by high quality football journalists as well.

What is nonsense is some of the arguments in here. The amount of ignorance on display is astounding, and the 'armchair expert' comments are hilarious. No one cares how many games you have been to or how many years of football you have watched, you are a biased, emotional, non-objective human being, you are by nature unreliable whereas statistics are the complete opposite of that and are reliable. 

[Bob76]

51 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

LOL this conversation reminds me of the Moneyball film where all the old baseball scouts rail against the statistics because of their supposed superior 'knowledge and experience'. 

XG is not a nonsense, hence why its literally being used by professional football clubs, amongst thousands of over statistics and used by high quality football journalists as well.

What is nonsense is some of the arguments in here. The amount of ignorance on display is astounding, and the 'armchair expert' comments are hilarious. No one cares how many games you have been to or how many years of football you have watched, you are a biased, emotional, non-objective human being, you are by nature unreliable whereas statistics are the complete opposite of that and are reliable. 

Funny that, I studied statistics years ago and one of the things you had to do for the exam was to take the base data and use it to statistically prove three different views.

As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

They have their plans but are not the only truth.

[Fabrice Fernandes no.1 fan]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It doesn't and it can't. That's part of the reason that xG is such a nonsense - it doesn't factor in the lottery that is the reality of football, ie someone getting in the way, a worldy save, a foul, anything spontaneous or that otherwise just happens. It's nonsense. 

It depends on what statistical model you use. If you're looking at an xG site where each shot is taken into isolation then it doesn't factor in those. 

But you can look at the passage of play as a whole, and aggregate the xG of the previous shots with the final shot. I've heard it discussed on a tactics podcast/seen it on the athletic (can't remember exactly where). Essentially you aggregate the shots, so in that instance the likelihood of Chelsea scoring one of the 3 shots is very high.

Also, xG is exactly for what you say above, if someone gets in the way of a shot, or a keep makes a worldy save, that doesn't effect the xG. It just shows how good the save was, or how important the block was. If we have a chance that is 0.7xG because it is essentially a tap in, but the keeper makes an exceptional save, then the stat shows how important that save was. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

LOL this conversation reminds me of the Moneyball film where all the old baseball scouts rail against the statistics because of their supposed superior 'knowledge and experience'. 

XG is not a nonsense, hence why its literally being used by professional football clubs, amongst thousands of over statistics and used by high quality football journalists as well.

What is nonsense is some of the arguments in here. The amount of ignorance on display is astounding, and the 'armchair expert' comments are hilarious. No one cares how many games you have been to or how many years of football you have watched, you are a biased, emotional, non-objective human being, you are by nature unreliable whereas statistics are the complete opposite of that and are reliable. 

 

Do you think when Ralph was setting the tactics up for saturday he thought to himself whatever i do there is no fucking way we are getting thumped here, their XG is only 4? 

 

If football was played on spreadsheets MLG would be Maradona.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by Turkish

[TWar]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

Do you think when Ralph was setting the tactics up for saturday he thought to himself whatever i do there is no fucking way we are getting thumped here, their XG is only 4? 

 

If football was played on spreadsheets MLG would be Maradona.

xG is calculated after the game given the chances the occurred, you don't calculate it before so how could he think "there is no way we are getting thumped, their xG is only 4" when setting up tactics?

Sometimes I think mistrust of xG in some comes from basic misunderstanding of what it is and how it works.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by TWar

[TWar]

14 minutes ago, Fabrice Fernandes no.1 fan said:

It depends on what statistical model you use. If you're looking at an xG site where each shot is taken into isolation then it doesn't factor in those. 

But you can look at the passage of play as a whole, and aggregate the xG of the previous shots with the final shot. I've heard it discussed on a tactics podcast/seen it on the athletic (can't remember exactly where). Essentially you aggregate the shots, so in that instance the likelihood of Chelsea scoring one of the 3 shots is very high.

Also, xG is exactly for what you say above, if someone gets in the way of a shot, or a keep makes a worldy save, that doesn't effect the xG. It just shows how good the save was, or how important the block was. If we have a chance that is 0.7xG because it is essentially a tap in, but the keeper makes an exceptional save, then the stat shows how important that save was. 

Yep exactly! Basically all models use cumulative xG for a move. For instance if someone had a shot from 10 yards out, the keeper saved it, and then someone poked it in from 5 yards out that would have an xG of over 1 if both xG were just added together, which is obviously flawed as one move can't lead to more than 1 goal. Instead multiple shots are aggregated in the model to make the overall move more likely.

If the first shot had an xG of 0.7 and bounced back then the second had an xG of 0.8 then the overall xG of the move is calculated as 0.7+(0.3*0.8), or xG1 + ((1-xG1)*xG2) if people are interested.

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, TWar said:

xG is calculated after the game given the chances the occurred, you don't calculate it before so how could he think "there is no way we are getting thumped, their xG is only 4" when setting up tactics?

Sometimes I think mistrust of xG in some comes from basic misunderstanding of what it is and how it works.

I know how it works pal, i was just making a point, the reason we didn't conede 10 on saturday wasn't because Chelseas XG was lower than 10.

[Dman]

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

LOL this conversation reminds me of the Moneyball film where all the old baseball scouts rail against the statistics because of their supposed superior 'knowledge and experience'. 

XG is not a nonsense, hence why its literally being used by professional football clubs, amongst thousands of over statistics and used by high quality football journalists as well.

What is nonsense is some of the arguments in here. The amount of ignorance on display is astounding, and the 'armchair expert' comments are hilarious. No one cares how many games you have been to or how many years of football you have watched, you are a biased, emotional, non-objective human being, you are by nature unreliable whereas statistics are the complete opposite of that and are reliable. 

Let me clarify. What XG is good at demonstrating… 

“we’re playing well, creating a lot of ‘good chances’, but not putting them away. I.E Brighton. 
 

or, as an example more relevant to the film… “we need a goal scorer, adams has many qualities, but his record is x compared to his XG of x. He’s not a great finisher”

What XG isn’t good at demonstrating… 

“We were unlucky that was was 6, their XG was only 4”. 

Stick Ronaldo on the end of a few of those Werner chances and he doesn’t miss. Especially the free header from 10 yards. XG is an average and there are many variables to that average, the main one being the quality of the finishing of striker. 

Every time someone like Werner or Adams miss from 10 yards, it brings the XG for that chance down. 

It also doesn’t factor in, as Chez pointed out, external pressures that simply cannot be accounted for in statistics. 
 

In short, if you watched that game and genuinely thought we were unlucky to concede 6, then You clearly have very little understanding of football. 

Edited 12 April, 2022 by Dman

[Sarisbury Saint]

Out of interest (feeling bored), what was the xg when Man City completely battered us in the cup recently 

[TWar]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I know how it works pal, i was just making a point, the reason we didn't conede 10 on saturday wasn't because Chelseas XG was lower than 10.

The point doesn't make sense. How does the question "do you think Ralph thought about the xG beforehand" work with a functioning understanding of how xG works?

No mate, because it hadn't happened yet, do you think he's currently thinking about next weeks lottery numbers?

xG is an analysis tool, not a prediction tool. Do I think he and his team looked at xG after the game when analysing it? Absolutely. Do I think he looked at it before and thought "we won't get battered, they only have an xG of 4"? No, because he doesn't have a TARDIS.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by TWar

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, Dman said:

Let me clarify. What XG is good at demonstrating… 

“we’re playing well, creating a lot of ‘good chances’, but not putting them away. I.E Brighton. 

What XG isn’t good at demonstrating… 

“We were unlucky that was was 6, their XG was only 4”. 

Stick Ronaldo on the end of a few of those Werner chances and he doesn’t miss. Especially the free header from 10 yards. XG is an average and there are many variables to that average, the main one being the quality of the finishing of striker. 

Every time someone like Werner or Adams miss from 10 yards, it brings the XG for that chance down. 

It also doesn’t factor in, as Chez pointed out, external pressures that simply cannot be accounted for in statistics. 
 

In short, if you watched that game and genuinely thought we were unlucky to concede 6, then You clearly have very little understanding of football. 

Ronaldo is underperforming xG by a decent margin, so yeah, it's very likely he does miss. Adams, who you say in this, is finishing better than him this season. This won't be a surprise to united fans but Saints fans who don't watch him regularly will get the wrong end of the stick, which is why xG is helpful.

xG is also good at disproving this "top strikers don't miss" myth. Top strikers get more chances, the disparity between how reliably they put these chances away is a much smaller factor.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, TWar said:

The point doesn't make sense. How does the question "do you think Ralph thought about the xG beforehand" work with a functioning understanding of how xG works?

No mate, because it hadn't happened yet, do you think he's currently thinking about next weeks lottery numbers?

 

Jesus wept. I'll spell it out to you as you seem to be struggling, it was a flippant comment, not meant to be taken totally seriously and literally.

You know like when someone says to you "knock, knock" do you know there isn't actually, literally someone at the door?

It's like dealing with Rain Man on speed.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by Turkish

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

Jesus wept. I'll spell it out to you as you seem to be struggling, it was a flippant comment, not meant to be taken totally seriously and literally. It's like dealing with Rain Man on speed.

It was a dumb comment which exposed you don't know what you are on about. You don't need to be "Rain man on speed" to know the question "do you think he knew the result before it happened when setting up the team?" is the words of a person who doesn't know what they are on about.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by TWar

[TWar]

13 minutes ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

Out of interest (feeling bored), what was the xg when Man City completely battered us in the cup recently 

Unfortunately I can't find it for cup games, my usual sources only does league. It's probably available somewhere though.

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, TWar said:

It was a dumb comment which exposed you don't know what you are on about. You don't need to be "Rain man on speed" to know the question "do you think he thought knew the result before it happened when setting up the team?" is the words of a person who doesn't know what they are on about.

You are very odd. Accusing others of not knowing what they're on about when you claimed a player was the best in the world in a postion he didn't even play in.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by Turkish

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

Ronaldo is underperforming xG by a decent margin, so yeah, it's very likely he does miss. Adams, who you say in this, is finishing better than him this season. This won't be a surprise to united fans but Saints fans who don't watch him regularly will get the wrong end of the stick, which is why xG is helpful.

xG is also good at disproving this "top strikers don't miss" myth. Top strikers get more chances, the disparity between how reliably they put these chances away is a much smaller factor.

I haven’t watched much of Ronaldo, I was using him as an example as being one of the best strikers in the world for many years.

But you’re missing the point completely, as per. The quality of the striker impacts the likelihood of the chance going in. XG doesn’t factor that in. 

[TWar]

32 minutes ago, Dman said:

I haven’t watched much of Ronaldo, I was using him as an example as being one of the best strikers in the world for many years.

But you’re missing the point completely, as per. The quality of the striker impacts the likelihood of the chance going in. XG doesn’t factor that in. 

Strikers quality is from getting in positions. Top forwards rarely exceed xG that heavily, if at all. Here is a list of top strikers

The number on the far right is how much they under and overperform xG. And here are some more average strikers

It really doesn't seem like top strikers massively underperform and poor strikers massively overperform as you say.

I'm not missing the point. The point is incorrect. It's based off the assumption that the best striker is the guy who finishes their chances the best, which is catagorically not true. The best striker is the guy who gets the most chances. Saying "xG is bad because the big forwards bring the average up and small ones bring it down" is just wrong, as you can see from this evidence. The big forwards actually underperform just as much as the smaller ones.

I had an argument months and months ago, I think with Duckhunter, where I said ability to be in a position to score is just as important than finishing if not moreso. This is the evidence for that.

[TWar]

44 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You are very odd. Accusing others of not knowing what they're on about when you claimed a player was the best in the world in a postion he didn't even play in.

I misremembered a leftback as a rightback, wow what a massive mistake. You seem to confidently wade in on the xG argument regularly and you still don't understand it is not something calculated before the game. And you seem completely unable to retain that information as I'm sure you've made that mistake before.

[Turkish]

29 minutes ago, TWar said:

I misremembered a leftback as a rightback, wow what a massive mistake. You seem to confidently wade in on the xG argument regularly and you still don't understand it is not something calculated before the game. And you seem completely unable to retain that information as I'm sure you've made that mistake before.

and you dont know your left from rights.

[Dman]

26 minutes ago, TWar said:

I'm not missing the point. The point is incorrect. It's based off the assumption that the best striker is the guy who finishes their chances the best, which is catagorically not true. The best striker is the guy who gets the most chances.

Aye? 

You’re massively overthinking this. I can only assume you’ve watched the moneyball film or a few YouTube videos and think you’re some kind of genius. 

Clearly, a striker who score 1 of 2 chances he gets in a game, is better than one who scores 0/8. 

‘Chances’ don’t win you games, goals do. 

[TWar]

Just now, Dman said:

Aye? 

You’re massively overthinking this. I can only assume you’ve watched the moneyball film or a few YouTube videos and think you’re some kind of genius. 

Clearly, a striker who score 1 of 2 chances he gets in a game, is better than one who scores 0/8. 

‘Chances’ don’t win you games, goals do. 

I think you are underthinking this. And I in no way think I'm some sort of genius everything I'm saying has been discussed to death by many many people for almost a decade. I'm just someone who vaguely keeps up with the current state of play in football analysis by listening to a few podcasts and reading a few blogs. No genius here.

Chances do win games, because they lead to goals. No chance No goal. For more evidence, see my last post. 

[Dman]

13 minutes ago, TWar said:

I think you are underthinking this. And I in no way think I'm some sort of genius everything I'm saying has been discussed to death by many many people for almost a decade. I'm just someone who vaguely keeps up with the current state of play in football analysis by listening to a few podcasts and reading a few blogs. No genius here.

Chances do win games, because they lead to goals. No chance No goal. For more evidence, see my last post. 

And if you’re striker is better at taking said chances (I.e a better finisher), they’ll score more goals… or are you arguing that is not correct? 
 

Or in Brighton’s case, where they have a high XG compared to goals scored (I think), chances don’t win games because their striker(s) / forwards aren’t very good…

Edited 12 April, 2022 by Dman

[TWar]

18 minutes ago, Dman said:

And if you’re striker is better at taking said chances (I.e a better finisher), they’ll score more goals… or are you arguing that is not correct? 
 

Or in Brighton’s case, where they have a high XG compared to goals scored (I think), chances don’t win games because their striker(s) / forwards aren’t very good…

This is no longer the case for brighton.

Shooting quality is rarely below xG or above xG for long periods as it really doesn't vary that much. Number of chances vary hugely, hence why it is more important. You can see this from the data I posted. I think we are both going round in circles and off topic and I don't have any more to add than what I have already said. Here is a good artical that goes into it more: https://www.footballcritic.com/features/why-using-expected-goals-kills-the-concept-of-a-clinical-striker/311

[Whitey Grandad]

27 minutes ago, TWar said:

I think you are underthinking this. And I in no way think I'm some sort of genius everything I'm saying has been discussed to death by many many people for almost a decade. I'm just someone who vaguely keeps up with the current state of play in football analysis by listening to a few podcasts and reading a few blogs. No genius here.

Chances do win games, because they lead to goals. No chance No goal. For more evidence, see my last post. 

In the olden days they always used to say that goals were scored from one in six chances typically. In Saints' case make that one in twenty. Does XG take into account the name of the team that's playing?

[TWar]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

In the olden days they always used to say that goals were scored from one in six chances typically. In Saints' case make that one in twenty. Does XG take into account the name of the team that's playing?

Saints actually are pretty middling at finishing chances this season. I would recommend the same link I just sent to DMan for the "some teams/players are more clinical" argument: https://www.footballcritic.com/features/why-using-expected-goals-kills-the-concept-of-a-clinical-striker/311

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

This is no longer the case for brighton.

Shooting quality is rarely below xG or above xG for long periods as it really doesn't vary that much. Number of chances vary hugely, hence why it is more important. You can see this from the data I posted. I think we are both going round in circles and off topic and I don't have any more to add than what I have already said. Here is a good artical that goes into it more: https://www.footballcritic.com/features/why-using-expected-goals-kills-the-concept-of-a-clinical-striker/311

I guess it must be true if ‘James Tippett’, from ‘football critic’ says so. 
 

Amazing that United have spent a fortune bringing in Ronaldo, when they could have just asked Glen Murray out of retirement. 

[TWar]

4 minutes ago, Dman said:

I guess it must be true if ‘James Tippett’, from ‘football critic’ says so. 
 

Amazing that United have spent a fortune bringing in Ronaldo, when they could have just asked Glen Murray out of retirement. 

It's about the argument, not the guy writing it. He has evidence if you read it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What a load of old pony. X fucking g…pony. 
 

When Werner went through, rounded the keeper and scored the third, I turned to my mate and said “he’d have missed that at 0-0”. That’s the thing about great strikers, they score when it matters. The end of games, the decider, the equaliser . How can Xg measure the pressure each chance comes with, the consequences of missing, the state of play, the fatigue of the scorer, the opposition keeper. I’d be top of the Xg pops  if I was facing Alex McCarthy every week. I played with a mush who was regularly our top scorer each year. Win 5-1 and he’d notch 2 or 3. Lose 4-1, he’d get the consolation goal. But he’d shit his shorts if he had a chance to win the game in the last minute. I suggest people use their bins more. 

[Dman]

7 minutes ago, TWar said:

It's about the argument, not the guy writing it. He has evidence if you read it.

His evidence is based on XG, which I’ve disputed the accuracy of due to a number of external factors, which simply cannot be quantified. 

You’ve not been able to answer or satisfy those questions. 
 

As I’ve always said, there is certainly a place in the game for stats, used correctly, they can be a valuable tool, but also a degree of your own analysis needs to happen along side said stats. 
 

anyway, this is a long way off the thread. I maintain, on another day (let’s say Lukaku was fit), the score would very likely have been more than 6. 

[TWar]

3 minutes ago, Dman said:

His evidence is based on XG, which I’ve disputed the accuracy of due to a number of external factors, which simply cannot be quantified. 

You’ve not been able to answer or satisfy those questions. 
 

As I’ve always said, there is certainly a place in the game for stats, used correctly, they can be a valuable tool, but also a degree of your own analysis needs to happen along side said stats. 
 

anyway, this is a long way off the thread. I maintain, on another day (let’s say Lukaku was fit), the score would very likely have been more than 6. 

Your external factors are strikers are different levels of clinical. If this was true better forwards would out perform xG but they don't. Everything else like tired legs or confidence don't really seem to be backed up statistically.

[Dman]

24 minutes ago, TWar said:

Your external factors are strikers are different levels of clinical. If this was true better forwards would out perform xG but they don't. Everything else like tired legs or confidence don't really seem to be backed up statistically.

Fuck me. Head against a brick wall. 
 

there are many external factors. Some being; 

- Time and situation of the game - less pressure at 80 minutes when you’re 6-0 up, than it is 0-0 in a relegation battle. 

- pace and accuracy of the pass / cross (specifically for these type of chances). 

- finishing ability of the striker. Regardless of what XG says, there are some strikers who are better than others. 
 

Anyway, agree to disagree, I cba to continue to go over the same stuff. 

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

Fuck me. Head against a brick wall. 
 

there are many external factors. Some being; 

- Time and situation of the game - less pressure at 80 minutes when you’re 6-0 up, than it is 0-0 in a relegation battle. 

- pace and accuracy of the pass / cross (specifically for these type of chances). 

- finishing ability of the striker. Regardless of what XG says, there are some strikers who are better than others. 
 

Anyway, agree to disagree, I cba to continue to go over the same stuff. 

1st is irrelevant statistically, 2nd is considered as part of the calculation, 3rd doesn't matter for reasons previously outlined by me and article

Edited 12 April, 2022 by TWar