Expected Goals (xG)

[Miles Away]

The value?

You only find out the expected goals after the event?

If I bet consistently in line with an aggregated Xg.

 

[popillius]

Fecking ignoramuses. A little more background:

To work out a team's “expected goals” (xG) for a match, every shot must be analysed and given an "Expected goal value" (EGV). EGV is the probability that any given shot will end up as a goal.

EGV is based on a number of factors, such as where the shot was taken from, the proximity of defenders, the nature of the attack (i.e a direct free-kick or a penalty). The EGV of a shot assumes it is being taken by someone of average ability in the league, so it expects for instance that a shot from 10 yards out plum in front of goal with no defenders nearby has a high chance of ending up as a goal.

From an analysis of every shot's EGV in a match, an "expected goals" (xG) figure can be placed on each team from that match. If a team has a higher xG figure than actual goals scored, it will broadly be because of wasteful finishing or good goalkeeping, or both. Likewise if a team is scoring more than its xG then it could be down to moments of individual brilliance from an attacker or say a goalkeeping error.

xG's value is that it gives an indication of whether a team's results are based on sustainable factors like the consistent creation or denial of chances, or whether it is down to less sustainable factors like freakishly high chance conversion or sensational goalkeeping.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...does-show-man-city-should-win-premier-league/

Dusty Bin.

 

[M17TT C]

I thought we had clarified in the other thread that it is all a load of shite?

 

[bocadillo]

I thought we had clarified in the other thread that it is all a load of shite?

Yes, but this is so shite that it needs a second clarification.

 

[bocadillo]

If I bet consistently in line with an aggregated Xg...

... you'll realise that it's not nearly as good as the ultrajofox system.

 

[popillius]

... you'll realise that it's not nearly as good as the ultrajofox system.

Any reference to this makes me extremely happy. I assume it's currently on hiatus.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Any reference to this makes me extremely happy. I assume it's currently on hiatus.

Draw system. Unbeatable.

 

[bocadillo]

Any reference to this makes me extremely happy. I assume it's currently on hiatus.

It's jo's birthday today. Perhaps he'll restore it to celebrate the day.

Hippo Birdy jo.

 

[camberwell fox]

It's jo's birthday today. Perhaps he'll restore it to celebrate the day.

Hippo Birdy jo.

Has he reached puberty yet?

 

[popillius]

Has he reached puberty yet?

Ask homer.

 

[Brown Nose]

If I bet consistently in line with an aggregated Xg.

Exactly. At least someone on here seems to get it.

My take is that in any individual game, just like the result, the xG will be variable. When we beat Spurs 2-1, we beat the xG and we beat our own performance. We didn't play better than Spurs over 90mins, but we did beat them. We also almost smashed the xG at Liverpool. We got what we deserved from our overall performance there (nothing) but that didn't just define the outcome. If you ride your luck, have a keeper make some saves, and take your minor opportunities, you can overcome the odds.

As a cynic of xG, I looked into it in order to see whether it has any merit and it clearly does. Not in a one off match or even in a few matches, but over a season, it is highly reflective of reality. In four of the last five seasons, using xG alone, you have us within one position of our actual finishing position. So it clearly isn't bollocks.

Our xG results so far this season are a more accurate reflection than our actual results:

(H) Wolves - draw was a fair result. Wolves were slighly the better team but didn't earn the win
(A) Chelsea - draw was a fair result but Chelsea had slightly better chances overall
(A) Sheff U - draw was the fair result
(H) Bournemouth - comfortable home win
(A) Man U - deservedly lost but only due to the penalty conceded
(H) Spurs - draw was a fair result, almost dead even game
(H) Newcastle - comfortable home win
(A) Liverpool - deservedly lost - should have been by more than it was

xG says that if we don't start attacking better this season, we will slide down the league into mid table. This is because we're currently out-performing ourselves and it isn't likely to continue. I think that is spot on.

We're only where we are in the league because we're stopping opponents from creating clear cut chances against us.

 

[popillius]

When we beat Spurs 2-1, we beat the xG and we beat our own performance.

And that sentence sums up perfectly, the bollocks that is modern football stats. Meaningless tripe.

 

[homer]

Exactly. At least someone on here seems to get it.

My take is that in any individual game, just like the result, the xG will be variable. When we beat Spurs 2-1, we beat the xG and we beat our own performance. We didn't play better than Spurs over 90mins, but we did beat them. We also almost smashed the xG at Liverpool. We got what we deserved from our overall performance there (nothing) but that didn't just define the outcome. If you ride your luck, have a keeper make some saves, and take your minor opportunities, you can overcome the odds.

As a cynic of xG, I looked into it in order to see whether it has any merit and it clearly does. Not in a one off match or even in a few matches, but over a season, it is highly reflective of reality. In four of the last five seasons, using xG alone, you have us within one position of our actual finishing position. So it clearly isn't bollocks.

Our xG results so far this season are a more accurate reflection than our actual results:

(H) Wolves - draw was a fair result. Wolves were slighly the better team but didn't earn the win
(A) Chelsea - draw was a fair result but Chelsea had slightly better chances overall
(A) Sheff U - draw was the fair result
(H) Bournemouth - comfortable home win
(A) Man U - deservedly lost but only due to the penalty conceded
(H) Spurs - draw was a fair result, almost dead even game
(H) Newcastle - comfortable home win
(A) Liverpool - deservedly lost - should have been by more than it was

xG says that if we don't start attacking better this season, we will slide down the league into mid table. This is because we're currently out-performing ourselves and it isn't likely to continue. I think that is spot on.

We're only where we are in the league because we're stopping opponents from creating clear cut chances against us.

Everybody gets it, BN - it's an interesting stat, amongst many

Difference is, we all think it's bollocks

Watch the game, make your own judgements, recognise that football is a game full of inconsistencies, different patterns of play, and good old fashioned rub of the green. Form your own opinion (which will always differ from others - that's the joy of it all)

But above all things, ignore this utter tripe

 

[jb5000]

We're only where we are in the league because we're stopping opponents from creating clear cut chances against us.

But isn't that half of the game?

 

[Lako42]

In four of the last five seasons, using xG alone, you have us within one position of our actual finishing position. So it clearly isn't bollocks.

It's less accurate than what actually happened then, and seeing as it's a retrospective metric, if it's less accurate than what happened then what is the fecking point?

As you said, in single games it's pointless, in the course of a season I can see what has happened, not what was expected the happen (after the event)

 

[Miles Away]

Whisper it but Leicester City aren't a good attacking side... - Football365

…but they are bloody good defensively, especially with Wilfred Ndidi so brilliant. Peter Goldstein is back…

www.football365.com

 

[Brown Nose]

Whisper it but Leicester City aren't a good attacking side... - Football365

…but they are bloody good defensively, especially with Wilfred Ndidi so brilliant. Peter Goldstein is back…

www.football365.com

Nice find. It's exactly what I've been trying to say but Goldstein has done much better than me.

Ultimately, we're strong in defence and central midfield. We have a legend in goal and up front. Where we're lacking is in the support forward positions. The likes of Barnes, Gray, Perez and Albrighton just don't cut it. All are talented players, all can play really well, but all inconsistent and frustrating.

There is another point worth making which is that we've faced Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool away in our first eight matches. So 75% of our away games have been against the 'big six'. For the remainder of the season, this will be 20%, so you would expect to see our creativity improve away from home. These stats don't seem to account for this sort of thing.

 

[fitz]

So are we top of the unexpected goals table then?

 

[Blue Maniac]

So are we top of the unexpected goals table then?

This seems to be the logical conclusion.

 

[homer]

Whisper it but Leicester City aren't a good attacking side... - Football365

…but they are bloody good defensively, especially with Wilfred Ndidi so brilliant. Peter Goldstein is back…

www.football365.com

So stop pretending Maddison is some kind of ‘inside left’ andinstead play him in his proper number 10 position ?

Bliney, who would have thought it....