Xg

[st albans fox]

Discuss .......

[Bayfox]

It's not a thing end debate 

[don_danbury]

load of rubbish

[Sly]

Ultimately it’ll balance out in the long run.

 

It’s not 100% accurate, however it sums up what people were saying. 

[Nuge]

Loada bollocks. End discussion. 

[Matt]

Shove it up your arse, along with possession stats and any other stats you wanna skew things with.

 

Edited 19 January 2020 by Matt

[st albans fox]

16 minutes ago, Bayfox said:

It's not a thing end debate 

well It is a thing .......

 

we were told we were outperforming our xg stats (at both ends) and that our scoring/clean sheets would drop off .....

 

is that true ?  Seems like it is to me ....... 

 

earlier in the season, we were taking loads more of our chances/half chances ........now we aren’t ..... and at the back, we weren’t making errors ......now we are .....

 

 

Edited 19 January 2020 by st albans fox

[Guest ttfn]

1 minute ago, Sly said:

Ultimately it’ll balance out in the long run.

 

It’s not 100% accurate, however it sums up what people were saying. 

This is the point though, now it is balancing out.

 

Realistically we weren’t going to carry on finishing so efficiently all season. 
 

The cold truth is that we were never as good as people thought we were back in October/November. The xG supported that, as did numerous other more traditional metrics that people are universally happy to see the value in.

 

It doesn’t help that in addition to being less clinical, we’re simply not playing well at the moment.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, ttfn said:

This is the point though, now it is balancing out.

 

Realistically we weren’t going to carry on finishing so efficiently all season. 
 

The cold truth is that we were never as good as people thought we were back in October/November. The xG supported that, as did numerous other more traditional metrics that people are universally happy to see the value in.

 

It doesn’t help that in addition to being less clinical, we’re simply not playing well at the moment.

it’s not a perfect metric but it gives a good indication of what’s happening ......your post sums it up pretty well and good to have some proper debate (I appreciate some responses above were in the heat of the defeat ) 

[Sly]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

it’s not a perfect metric but it gives a good indication of what’s happening ......your post sums it up pretty well and good to have some proper debate (I appreciate some responses above were in the heat of the defeat ) 

xG did point to us out performing, which we can all acknowledge we were, surely? 
 

The 9-0 at Southampton was a freak result and it’s screwed up over stats like G/d etc etc 

 

 

 

[Bayfox]

36 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

well It is a thing .......

 

we were told we were outperforming our xg stats (at both ends) and that our scoring/clean sheets would drop off .....

 

is that true ?  Seems like it is to me ....... 

 

earlier in the season, we were taking loads more of our chances/half chances ........now we aren’t ..... and at the back, we weren’t making errors ......now we are .....

 

 

It's not tho it's another made up stat that means very little.

 

It's the equivalent on the NFL having 1000%

[Stadt]

Just now, Bayfox said:

It's not tho it's another made up stat that means very little.

 

It's the equivalent on the NFL having 1000%

It’s not really any different to saying a players “should have scored there” it just assigns a numericsl value to it. Basically tells how often shots under certain circumstances (e.g angle, distance, header or volley). We created enough chances to win today and xG shows it 

[justfoxes]

At first glance I thought this was a Korean or Chinese player we were signing ?? #WHOOPS !!

[hejammy]

Only stat that matters is the score. 

[Bayfox]

8 minutes ago, Stadt said:

It’s not really any different to saying a players “should have scored there” it just assigns a numericsl value to it. Basically tells how often shots under certain circumstances (e.g angle, distance, header or volley). We created enough chances to win today and xG shows it 

In who's opinion. Theres 30k sat at the KP most weeks who think player x should score. But unfortunately they decided on beers and birds at 16 not professional football.

 

It's up there with the worst of modern football. I've seen games where teams despite having 6 shots on target the xg is like 0.08% if you have 6 shots on target you should be scoring at least 1. 

[blaaklint]

5 minutes ago, Bayfox said:

In who's opinion. Theres 30k sat at the KP most weeks who think player x should score. But unfortunately they decided on beers and birds at 16 not professional football.

 

It's up there with the worst of modern football. I've seen games where teams despite having 6 shots on target the xg is like 0.08% if you have 6 shots on target you should be scoring at least 1. 

what you're saying is that if a team has 6 shots on target from outside the box then they should score at least 1? 6 shots from outside the box likely will give 0.08xG bc they're all wank places to shoot from

 

edit: @SouthStandUpperTier is far more eloquent than i am

Edited 19 January 2020 by blaaklint

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Just now, Bayfox said:

In who's opinion. Theres 30k sat at the KP most weeks who think player x should score. But unfortunately they decided on beers and birds at 16 not professional football.

 

It's up there with the worst of modern football. I've seen games where teams despite having 6 shots on target the xg is like 0.08% if you have 6 shots on target you should be scoring at least 1. 

All depends on the quality of the chance. If they were 6 shots from long range that barely troubled the keeper, then your xG will be low, despite the stats saying you had 6 shots on target.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

All depends on the quality of the chance. If they were 6 shots from long range that barely troubled the keeper, then your xG will be low, despite the stats saying you had 6 shots on target.

It’s not where the shot goes, it’s where the shot is taken from and how much of a percentage is placed on scoring from that position .....I assume it takes into account where defenders are also

 

Others have pointed out that’s it just a numerical value on what we see infront of us

 

we should win that today 2-1 on Xg ..... having watched the game, I think 2-1 or 3-1 was about right ...... it’s basic commonsense that if you continue to get better results than the chances you create are worthy of then at some point this is going to correct itself ......add to that we were conceding less goals than the quality of chances created against us were worthy of and the correction is potentially a double whammy  ...

[Bayfox]

10 minutes ago, blaaklint said:

what you're saying is that if a team has 6 shots on target from outside the box then they should score at least 1? 6 shots from outside the box likely will give 0.08xG bc they're all wank places to shoot from

 

edit: @SouthStandUpperTier is far more eloquent than i am

 

10 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

All depends on the quality of the chance. If they were 6 shots from long range that barely troubled the keeper, then your xG will be low, despite the stats saying you had 6 shots on target.

And there in lies the issue. Football is not a science. As a stat that we should pay attention to it really is a waste of time.

 

And yes. If madders lines up 6 free kicks and hits them all on target I'd expect him to score 1. 

 

Personally I despise the fact that programmes like MOTD even show it after games.

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Bayfox said:

 

And there in lies the issue. Football is not a science. As a stat that we should pay attention to it really is a waste of time.

 

And yes. If madders lines up 6 free kicks and hits them all on target I'd expect him to score 1. 

 

Personally I despise the fact that programmes like MOTD even show it after games.

 

 

Don’t take it too seriously but there’s a broad message that needs to be listened to in amongst it ........

[blabyboy]

 

[Dan LCFC]

I just can't brandish it as bollocks. It's not perfect but it's not rubbish.