I know we're high, as in good. Which I know suggests unlucky but I don't believe the errors we make which do lead to the goals we concede are unlucky tbh.Would anyone like to guess where we rank in the expected goals against (xGA) table? For reference, we have currently conceded 34 which puts us 18th in the actual goals against table (where lower = more conceded).
Answer:5th, with only 23.0 xGA, behind only Leeds, Burnley, Sheff U and Millwall.
Agreed.I know we're high, as in good. Which I know suggests unlucky but I don't believe the errors we make which do lead to the goals we concede are unlucky tbh.
Well having had some truly shocking keeper performances explains a lot of it. And anecdotally we’ve spent a lot of time behind in games where the oppo are likely to sit back more.I know we're high, as in good. Which I know suggests unlucky but I don't believe the errors we make which do lead to the goals we concede are unlucky tbh.
Many people stated earlier in the season we were conceding shite goals .Would anyone like to guess where we rank in the expected goals against (xGA) table? For reference, we have currently conceded 34 which puts us 18th in the actual goals against table (where lower = more conceded).
Answer:5th, with only 23.0 xGA, behind only Leeds, Burnley, Sheff U and Millwall.
lolxG is still a load of nonense. We battered Plymouth yesterday 4-0, yet our xG was only 1.28.
It's just arbitrary nonsense.
We had 9 shots on target.lol
Yesterday was a very good example of why it's not nonsense. We had 4 shots on target and scored 4 goals, That doesn't happen very often. A combination of good finishing and poor keeping caused that. If you replay that first half over and over most of the time we would not score 4 goals.
Was talking about the first half.We had 9 shots on target.
xG is still a load of nonense. We battered Plymouth yesterday 4-0, yet our xG was only 1.28.
It's just arbitrary nonsense.
xG is still a load of nonense. We battered Plymouth yesterday 4-0, yet our xG was only 1.28.
It's just arbitrary nonsense.
We know you are, you don't have to announce it on here.totally clueless
I agree a small amount, I don't think it's a collective issue.I know we're high, as in good. Which I know suggests unlucky but I don't believe the errors we make which do lead to the goals we concede are unlucky tbh.
But that's football. We use xG to say we are better than we are, We use xGA to say we're not as bad as we are. But the reality is, players score goals, defenders and keepers make mistakes.Was talking about the first half.
The point is, if you look at the shots we took critically you would not expect us to score 4 goals. Sakamoto's - decent chance but gets scored less often than you'd think, and arguably should have been saved. Eccles 1st - shot from 20 yards, rarely goes in. EMC - good chance but probably still only goes in half the time. Eccles 2nd - again, ~20 yards out, it gets missed more than scored.
Other than that we didn't create any particularly good chances.
People massively overestimate how 'good' chances actually are.
But that's football. We use xG to say we are better than we are, We use xGA to say we're not as bad as we are. But the reality is, players score goals, defenders and keepers make mistakes.
Lampard made a living our of scoring worldies, same as Le Tissier, Alan Shearer used to regular score screamers from outside the box. Theres only 1 stat that matters in football, and that's the score. Also unless you have some kind of Hawkeye technology monitoring the pace the trajectory, the angle of the ball, the exact position of everyone on the pitch, where the keeper is, the angle you're approaching it, players height, pace of the place traveling onto a ball, the wind speed and direction, it's complete nonsense. Even the type of ball, the EFL balls travel differently to the PL.
You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.But that's football. We use xG to say we are better than we are, We use xGA to say we're not as bad as we are. But the reality is, players score goals, defenders and keepers make mistakes.
Lampard made a living our of scoring worldies, same as Le Tissier, Alan Shearer used to regular score screamers from outside the box. Theres only 1 stat that matters in football, and that's the score. Also unless you have some kind of Hawkeye technology monitoring the pace the trajectory, the angle of the ball, the exact position of everyone on the pitch, where the keeper is, the angle you're approaching it, players height, pace of the place traveling onto a ball, the wind speed and direction, it's complete nonsense. Even the type of ball, the EFL balls travel differently to the PL.
Lampard made a living our of scoring worldies, same as Le Tissier, Alan Shearer used to regular score screamers from outside the box.
I don't think a non-awarded "penalty" counts towards xGNonsense or not, if Collins had let in the 4 their keeper did yesterday, the fall out on here (including by me) would've been toxic. He was shocking and however good we were, another day there's no way we get those 4 again (akrgough should've had a penalty so 1.28 does seem low)
I liked how it was something we've been working on withe wide players getting in on the opposite flank. Lampard mentioned it with Ephrons goal a couple of weeks back. Small changes but nice to see that progress.I thought Tats goal was a Tremendous leap Speedieesque but unchallenged, where was the defence?
Only one footballer has ever outscored xG every season of their career, that's Messi.Well yes, exactly.
That's why they were world class players - they were able to consistently score incredibly difficult chances/score out of nothing
ie they would massively outperform their xG stats which would show them as incredibly valuable players.
You've just described one use of xG without realising
Tats seems to win far more headers than someone of his stature should, he reads the ball flight very well and seems to get up at the right moment.I thought Tats goal was a Tremendous leap Speedieesque but unchallenged, where was the defence?
Ever walked away from a game and said “we should have won today” or “we got away with that”?
xG is just a statistical model to back that up removing bias.
I think where we are perhaps a little bit unlucky, is that pretty much every mistake at the back, leads to an opposition goal.I know we're high, as in good. Which I know suggests unlucky but I don't believe the errors we make which do lead to the goals we concede are unlucky tbh.
I might print this out and frame it above my bedWell yes, exactly.
That's why they were world class players - they were able to consistently score incredibly difficult chances/score out of nothing
ie they would massively outperform their xG stats which would show them as incredibly valuable players.
You've just described one use of xG without realising
I might print this out and frame it above my bed
Fotmob saying it was 2.0 xG to 0.25 for Plymouth. That's showing complete dominance really, an xG eight times that of the opposition.xG is still a load of nonense. We battered Plymouth yesterday 4-0, yet our xG was only 1.28.
It's just arbitrary nonsense.
Funny they have obviously changed it because footmob had it as this when I looked after the game. So according to the xG, 1-0 would have been a fair result based on quality of chances created.Fotmob saying it was 2.0 xG to 0.25 for Plymouth. That's showing complete dominance really, an xG eight times that of the opposition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?