Expected Goals (xG)

[Rock Fox]

Two free kicks spring to mind:

1) Robert Huth’s tremendous feck up a few years ago.

2) Maddison against Southampton a couple of weeks ago.

Very similar positions, with very different people taking them. Their xG would be about the same, as the situation was not far off identical and, yet, they yielded very different results. .... xG takes no account for goalkeeping errors, who’d have thought that may affect whether a goal is scored?

It would have been the goalkeeping error of all time if Huth's freekick had resulted in a goal!

 

[pork pie fox]

It would have been the goalkeeping error of all time if Huth's freekick had resulted in a goal!

Ha very true.

 

[Skitzo]

any table that puts Everton in the top 6 performing sides immediately invalidates its statistics

 

[Brown Nose]

So why do so many people inside the game and associated people, from journalists to bookmakers, rely on the data?

Experience shows that there is much worthwhile insight in it. Looking back to previous seasons, it is mostly very accurate.

The truth in the comment from Michael Cox is that actual goals/results are not the best indicator of long term performance.

 

[popillius]

So why do so many people inside the game and associated people, from journalists to bookmakers, rely on the data?
A. Because it keeps them in a job. They need to be seen to be doing something even if it is as worthless as this nonsense. It is also fashionable nonsense; that will soon end and it will be consigned to the dustbin with the rest of the hairbrained statistical schemes. I also think you are playing fast and loose with the word 'rely'. I doubt there is very much reliance on such mumbo jumbo for anyone in any proper statistical analysis. It is good for fooling idiots into parting with their money at the bookmakers however.

Experience shows that there is much worthwhile insight in it. Looking back to previous seasons, it is mostly very accurate.
A. It's wholly inaccurate thus far and if by accurate you mean it predicts the top 3 or 4 then I'm pretty sure anyone with half an ounce of knowledge about football could do exactly that.

The truth in the comment from Michael Cox is that actual goals/results are not the best indicator of long term performance.
A. Maybe not although they are a bloody good start. Investment, market trading, management at club and corporate level, infrastructure and training developments are equally as important. xG is certainly not an indicator of future performance.... Or current performance....

Apart from that, I agree.

 

[Skitzo]

Book makers rely on anything that will convince you to give them their money, journalists think it makes them sound like they know more than you which most often they don't.

There is SOME insight in it, but only when combined with all the other scouting data teams use, even then its not too much as XG doesn't take into account who the chance falls to so a chance that falls to Jamie Vardy would score the same as one that falls to Ben Chilwell

Michael Cox spent an entire season saying Burnley were actually a poor side, they finished 7th that season.

He started this season saying we weren't any good...

Oh and he openly admitted on the Totally Football pod that he doesn't care about winning when he plays football.

Or are you actually saying you think that Everton and Manchester United are better than we are?

 

[fitz]

It's bollocks

 

[Skitzo]

We destroyed the media convention that its all about possession and someone will destroy this media obsession too

 

[Lako42]

We destroyed the media convention that its all about possession and someone will destroy this media obsession too

Yea, us

 

[Blue Maniac]

We destroyed the media convention that its all about possession and someone will destroy this media obsession too

I reckon we will continue to shit on it the way we have been.

 

[fitz]

If the bookies love this shit so much can anyone ask them to update their odds for our game as you get **** all return on us.

 

[Jeff]

If the bookies love this shit so much can anyone ask them to update their odds for our game as you get **** all return on us.

This week's free £1 bet has gone on Soyuncu to score any time, at 14/1.

 

[fitz]

This week's free £1 bet has gone on Soyuncu to score any time, at 14/1.

The smart money is on him to get a brace.....also Vardy to get a brace or Perez to get a brace. Xg my arse

 

[Brown Nose]

Iheanacho's current xG is 2.49 goals per 90 mins played and 1.81 assists per 90 mins played.

We'd be mad not to play him tonight surely?

Piss poor Vardy is only on 0.57 and 0.12.

 

[bocadillo]

Iheanacho's current xG is 2.49 goals per 90 mins played and 1.81 assists per 90 mins played.

We'd be mad not to play him tonight surely?

Piss poor Vardy is only on 0.57 and 0.12.

It really is a load of shite, isn't it?

 

[Brown Nose]

It really is a load of shite, isn't it?

For some things. Not for others.

For example, it does tell us the following interesting facts.

1. Maddison has had more shots this season than Vardy
2. Gray or Albrighton are five times more likely to make an assist than Perez
3. Chilwell has had more shots and key passes this season than Ricardo

 

[Jeff]

If his xg is higher than his actual goals Thea

For some things. Not for others.

For example, it does tell us the following interesting facts.

1. Maddison has had more shots this season than Vardy
2. Gray or Albrighton are five times more likely to make an assist than Perez
3. Chilwell has had more shots and key passes this season than Ricardo

You don't need xg for those stats.

 

[SJN-Fox]

I think I read somewhere that our xg for the season is 19.

 

[Brown Nose]

I think I read somewhere that our xg for the season is 19.

-21.42

The gap between our xG and our actual goals scored is far and away the most absurd one in the league (+11.58). The next highest difference is Spurs at -4.95.

If we're the 'luckiest', the 'unluckiest' are Watford who have an xG of 16.69 but are 7.69 short.

 

[Jeff]

If we're the 'luckiest', the 'unluckiest' are Watford who have an xG of 16.69 but are 7.69 short.

No, we're the best. Watford are the worst.