Neville Facking Bartos Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) In Moore’s interview yesterday he claimed that our XG would be high. I thought I’d have a look 1.95 for and 0.72 against. Is that high? Well it is in comparison to Lincoln but what about our own record? Well we average 1.95 at home, 1.74 away and 1.85 overall. Not high really then. What about some of our rivals home XG records this season? I’ve had a look Plymouth- 1.8 Ipswich - 2.31 Barnsley - 1.58 Bolton - 1.46 P’Boro - 1.81 So we’re actually doing well compared to promotion rivals, Ipswich are the most threatening side. So was Moore right to draw attention to XG? It wasn’t particularly high but we clearly edged the game on XG without it being the battering he was trying to imply. Brighton’s was high yesterday, over 4 I think it was. I know a lot of people don’t like XG stats but I think they give a fair reflection of the game, a better stat than possession in that respect. The site I use for XG is https://footystats.org/clubs/sheffield-wednesday-fc-214 Edited April 2 by Neville Facking Bartos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neville Facking Bartos Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 50 minutes ago, Neville Facking Bartos said: I know a lot of people don’t like XG stats but I think they give a fair reflection of the game, a better stat than possession in that respect. And the Newcastle game Vs Man U today highlights that. They hammered them. Man U 54% possession but only 0.47 XG Vs Newcastle 3.5 something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkowlthesexynewversion Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 More modern day bollocks speak 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billysboy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, mkowlthesexynewversion said: More modern day bollocks speak This☝️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoylandOwl Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 XG. Stats for stat's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkowlthesexynewversion Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 13 minutes ago, HoylandOwl said: XG. Stats for stat's sake. That's the 4th time in 7 days for the first time since 2021 that you have said that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tylluan Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) XG on footystats is a very generic piece of kit. It doesn't factor teams played and their defensive stats and who's playing. (City's 4 goals, without Haaland, against Liverpool will have a different weighting to Arsenal's 4 against Leeds with Jesus back in the side. XG stats should also factor when a goal or attempt was made. We've had a lot of games where we've scored early doors and won 1-0. So our XG is more in the first quarter and, after Barnsley and Cheltenham we'll have seen an increase in the last quarter as well. Personally I hate XG but it's handy if you're doing opposition scouting and pretty much know their starting 11 as long as it's not used in a stand alone capacity Edited April 2 by Tylluan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoylandOwl Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 19 minutes ago, mkowlthesexynewversion said: That's the 4th time in 7 days for the first time since 2021 that you have said that Because it's true. And the more I say it, the more it becomes true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neville Facking Bartos Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 56 minutes ago, Tylluan said: XG stats should also factor when a goal or attempt was made. It does, it’s purely on quality of chances in a game. The only issue is it’s subjective from one analyst to the next. Possession, attempts at goal, corners etc aren’t 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neville Facking Bartos Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 Actually, according to this it’s not subjective at all https://statsbomb.com/soccer-metrics/expected-goals-xg-explained/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tylluan Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Neville Facking Bartos said: Actually, according to this it’s not subjective at all https://statsbomb.com/soccer-metrics/expected-goals-xg-explained/ Lifted from that page Feet Over Head. From the same distance, foot shots are more likely to result in goals than headed shots. Crosses Are Hard. In general, crosses are more difficult to convert than ground passes, throughballs and shots after dribbles. Yet from a different article on the same website. When looking at all shots and all headers we can see that there is only a negligible difference in the amount of each type that are on target (34% of headers vs 33% of shots). However of those on target attempts, a header is more likely to be scored than a shot (12% v 9%). https://statsbomb.com/articles/soccer/how-do-headers-compare-to-shots/#:~:text=When looking at all shots,(12% v 9%). whatever you do, don't enroll on one of their online courses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skamp Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 It's all utter bollocks. At the end of the Chelsea v Villa game on MOTD they were still showing this geeky bollocks stating something like 1.51 v 0.81 AFTER Villa had just tonked them 2-0 away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neville Facking Bartos Posted April 3 Author Share Posted April 3 But Skamp when you compare those XG figures against the other stats it adds up Chelsea had 69% possession and 27 attempts at goal to Villa's 5, 8 on target vs 2 off target. Villa appear to have done a job on them, a tonking it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkowlthesexynewversion Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Its for people who watch football sat on their sofa and have never been in a fucking stadium The ones that think VAR is a good thing for football Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheat Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 My problem with it is that it seemed to just appear from nowhere with no explanation a few years ago. Maybe I just missed the memo, but the first I knew of it was when it was shown on the screen as part of the stats on MOTD, and it took me a while to even work out what it stood for. It was just there without even any comment about it in the analysis. I think it can sometimes add a little context to the game and probably is a better indicator than possession for example. But as Tylluan pointed out what constitutes an XG does seem a little confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyben Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 13 minutes ago, mkowlthesexynewversion said: Its for people who watch football sat on their sofa and have never been in a fucking stadium The ones that think VAR is a good thing for football on their FotMob app Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCraigsOwl Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 I don't mind xG to be honest, albeit it is what it is - just a stat. The interesting bit comes when you lose, say, 0-2, to a side with an xG of, say, 0.34. It highlights that either you conceded two worldies, or your goalkeeper's fucking pish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkowlthesexynewversion Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 53 minutes ago, EastCraigsOwl said: I don't mind xG to be honest, albeit it is what it is - just a stat. The interesting bit comes when you lose, say, 0-2, to a side with an xG of, say, 0.34. It highlights that either you conceded two worldies, or your goalkeeper's fucking pish. Or it was going 5 yards wide and hit your square head centre half Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Trainspotter stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.