Well that's accurate,the second was a non event.
Well that's accurate,the second was a non event.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.
Thanks, yeah, they probably do Tbf.View attachment 40438
Yes TBF I'd seen 1.28 previously. They must go through a moderation type exercise afterwards.
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.
I might print this out and frame it above my bed
Yeah, even over the season it doesn't really take into account quality strikes, match status (e.g. opposition have scored early and just sat back for the rest of the game), you may only concede one or two chances a game but those are very good chances, so there's low xGA overall but actually they have had one of the best chances of the game.And that’s why, on a game-by-game basis it’s not hugely useful. It’s the equivalent of saying we’re now in excellent form because we won the last game 4-0.
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.just get irritated that people use it to suggest have been unlucky, that the league table lies and are really a top 5 team.
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.
If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.
It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.
If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.
It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.
There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.
And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
who said we’re using it to recruit?I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.
There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.
And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
Tbf the BTA point is something that should be put towards Robins and Austin.I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.
There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.
And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
I think where we are perhaps a little bit unlucky, is that pretty much every mistake at the back, leads to an opposition goal.
Usually you can make mistakes and get away with it on many occasion, because the opposing player makes a hash of things and you get a big let-off.
That has of course happened, but many a time we have made just one awful mistake and it's been a goal and/or two awful mistakes and it's been two goals.
Did start to think we were jinxed at some point, but I think it happens to many a team and you can go through spells where every error at the back results in a goal
Tbf the BTA point is something that should be put towards Robins and Austin.
I think one of the major critics of BTA when we signed him from WBA fans was that generally he was quite a poor finisher.
Good article in The Athletic today
xG, xA and a battle for hearts and minds – a friendly debate between a fan and The Athletic’s data expert
No paywall: http://archive.today/hLyOm
Knew you'd like thisrElEgAtIoN bAtTlE
Interesting comment from this Leeds fan
Ah come on now can’t take a Leeds fans view of Lampard seriously.
Would be interesting to see the stats since he took over. Anecdotally I seem to recall when I’ve looked we’ve overperformed our xG/xGA
In general we've been high on these tables all season , lampard has done fine really but with a very good run of fixtures
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.
Good article in The Athletic today
xG, xA and a battle for hearts and minds – a friendly debate between a fan and The Athletic’s data expert
No paywall: http://archive.today/hLyOm
Keeper should probably have done better with three of them.It’s not because Eccles scored two ranged efforts which are inherently low xG chances. We’ve seen Eccles take that shot to know those two goals, whilst great, were outliers.
Just as Sheaf scored that screamer v Sheffield Wednesday away in the league.
It’s not arbitrary, it’s people’s subjective opinions generally are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keeper should probably have done better with three of them.
I always interpreted these negatively. If we over perform I think ok we were lucky really to score that many. And if we under perform it’s bloody hell our strikers are useless! (Probably prefer the latter tbh)I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.
If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.
It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
Very good & simplifies it for those that don't understand it. Probably a bit too simplistic if anything but tbh I'd rather it never became a mainstream media & fans thing in the first place.Good article in The Athletic today
xG, xA and a battle for hearts and minds – a friendly debate between a fan and The Athletic’s data expert
No paywall: http://archive.today/hLyOm
The anti xg guy just comes across as an idiotGood article in The Athletic today
xG, xA and a battle for hearts and minds – a friendly debate between a fan and The Athletic’s data expert
No paywall: http://archive.today/hLyOm
the mind boggles"I don’t understand how you could have more possible/expected goals than you actually score, because there’s illogicality there."
Good article in The Athletic today
xG, xA and a battle for hearts and minds – a friendly debate between a fan and The Athletic’s data expert
No paywall: http://archive.today/hLyOm
I thought Tats goal was a Tremendous leap Speedieesque but unchallenged, where was the defence?
Their defence was poor but on that particular goal, the replays show that the GK flapped it into his own net. If he’d parried it back into the box and we get the rebound in, fair enough.I thought Tats goal was a Tremendous leap Speedieesque but unchallenged, where was the defence?
Agreed that the stats don’t take ‘game state’ into account and because we’ve conceded first so often, we’re chasing games and that would distort the xG somewhat in our favour. Conceding the first goal this season has been absolutely cancerous for our season 14 times in 24 games is only bettered by Hull and Plymouth who look like two poor teams.Yeah, even over the season it doesn't really take into account quality strikes, match status (e.g. opposition have scored early and just sat back for the rest of the game), you may only concede one or two chances a game but those are very good chances, so there's low xGA overall but actually they have had one of the best chances of the game.
I just get irritated that people use it to suggest have been unlucky, that the league table lies and are really a top 5 team. But we've all seen it with our own eyes, conceding soft goals, world beaters one minute, carpet beaters the next.
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?