What do the stats say?

[fitz]

Unable to appreciate xg.....lolz

 

[Blue Maniac]

Goals & assists by England’s attacking midfielders in all competitions this season:

Maddison - 21
Bowen - 21
Mount - 20
Foden - 19
Sterling - 18
Barnes - 17
Saka - 15
Smith-Rowe - 12
Sancho - 8
Grealish - 7
Rashford - 7

That big money move has been a bit shit for Grealish on an individual level hasn’t it

 

[Miles Away]

Just don’t think Southgate fancies Madders for his system at all though. Perhaps recent weeks might show he could be a bench option, but that would rely on Southgate having tactical flexibility when losing a match.

He won’t pick Maddison as long as he’s boss.

 

[camberwell fox]

A feature of this season is how many unlikely goals we've scored. Today, we scored two more outstanding finishes winning the game despite not creating many clear cut openings.

**PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE POP OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNABLE TO APPRECIATE XG**

From both playing 27 games this season, Everton have 25 points and are in massive trouble. Their xG points are 30.83 which illustrates that they've created chances but haven't been taking them.

In 27 games, we've got 36 points with an xG of 30.32. So we've got 11 points more than Everton despite creating slightly fewer good opportunities in matches.

Defensively, both sides are again very similar. In real goals against they've conceded 47 and we've conceded 46. On the defensive xG, it looks like Pickford has conceded about 4 goals more than he should have done whereas Schmeichel has saved 3 more than he should. Fine margins again.

The point of this post is to say that we'd be in a relegation battle right now if it weren't for our excellent finishing and having a good shot stopping keeper.

So what Xg and you are saying is that football is a spreadsheet, where you score, concede, draw and lose over a period of time based on your previous and therefore anticipated?
If this is accurate then 2015/16 didn’t and couldn’t have happened and all results past and future will naturally fall in line?

This isn’t competitive sport as Xg takes no account for local derbies, times of the year, injuries, referees and such, it just says that overall the balance will always tip to average.

Fortunately football doesn’t follow that mantra and results are based on factors way outside. Xg’s scope and intelligence.

Covid, international breaks and injuries are but to name three off the top of my head. It is an OCD’s wet dream and **** all beyond that.

 

[Orifice]

Goals win footbal matches. Score more of them, conceed fewer of them.
XG is interesting but, for me, only when bored.

 

[Miles Away]

Philistines.

 

[Brown Nose]

I can't be any clearer than writing this before discussing it:

**PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE POP OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNABLE TO APPRECIATE XG**

If you don't like xG, I get it. It's fine. Just ignore any posts about it. It's really, really boring that the same people have to post the same blah, blah about xG every single time a post is made referencing it.

 

[camberwell fox]

I can't be any clearer than writing this before discussing it:

**PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE POP OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNABLE TO APPRECIATE XG**

If you don't like xG, I get it. It's fine. Just ignore any posts about it. It's really, really boring that the same people have to post the same blah, blah about xG every single time a post is made referencing it.

Ditto.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I can't be any clearer than writing this before discussing it:

**PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE POP OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNABLE TO APPRECIATE XG**

If you don't like xG, I get it. It's fine. Just ignore any posts about it. It's really, really boring that the same people have to post the same blah, blah about xG every single time a post is made referencing it.

Okay but will you at least meet me in the middle and accept that it’s a flawed, subjective measurement?

 

[fitz]

I made up my own xg numbers. 2.37 v 0.76. We deserved the win.

 

[Lako42]

I can't be any clearer than writing this before discussing it:

**PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE POP OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNABLE TO APPRECIATE XG**

If you don't like xG, I get it. It's fine. Just ignore any posts about it. It's really, really boring that the same people have to post the same blah, blah about xG every single time a post is made referencing it.

I heard you smell of dog dicks

Don't shoot the messenger

 

[Brown Nose]

Okay but will you at least meet me in the middle and accept that it’s a flawed, subjective measurement?

Everything about football is flawed and subjective. VAR has been a shit show for exactly that reason.

Thankfully, football matches are not always determined by who plays best, who has the most possession, shots, etc.

Everything in football is a variable. That's what makes it such a good game. xG provides a view of quality of chances created vs. quality of chances created. It is as interesting a stat as any other in a flawed and subjective game.

We won the game today thanks to Maddison's goal. It was scored due to his ability to win a free kick by hooking his leg into the Brentford player and conning the ref into thinking that it was a foul (flawed and subjective).

He then scored from a position where xG says will be a goal one in every 12.5 times (xG was 0.08). That expectation is based on thousands of free kicks from that position on the pitch. It doesn't go - "oh, but Maddison is better than most free kick takers" - so it isn't perfect. But what in football is?

 

[Robin127]

...so it isn't perfect. But what in football is?

Soumare's ability to be absolutely crap when he steps onto the pitch.

 

[tedfoxxx]

But what in football is?

Vicente Iborra’s face and body.

 

[homer]

Michael Morrison’s massive chopper

True perfection

 

[popillius]

The point of this post is to say that xG is a total crock of shit that is completely and utterly useless in determining anything

Finally, we agree.

 

[popillius]

It's really, really boring that the same people keep using xG to try and prove shit it can't possibly prove.

And again. You're on a roll sunshine.

 

[Joe_Fox]

xG provides a view of quality of chances created vs. quality of chances created.

Hmmm, hardly a convincing argument, BN.

 

[londonfox]

What parameters are used to define a ‘quality chance’? Is the player on the end of the chance taken into consideration? A quality chance for Jamie Vardy isn’t necessarily a quality chance for Papy Mendy.

(consider this me thinking out loud and being rhetorical, cos’ the whole XG think is complete bollocks)

 

[Blue Maniac]

What parameters are used to define a ‘quality chance’? Is the player on the end of the chance taken into consideration? A quality chance for Jamie Vardy isn’t necessarily a quality chance for Papy Mendy.

(consider this me thinking out loud and being rhetorical, cos’ the whole XG think is complete bollocks)

Apparently it doesn’t even matter if the ****’s offside and the goal wouldn’t have counted.

load of shite