Sly Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 Ultimately it’ll balance out in the long run. It’s not 100% accurate, however it sums up what people were saying.
Matt Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 Shove it up your arse, along with possession stats and any other stats you wanna skew things with.
st albans fox Posted 19 January 2020 Author Posted 19 January 2020 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 .....
Guest ttfn Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Author Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 At first glance I thought this was a Korean or Chinese player we were signing ?? #WHOOPS !!
Bayfox Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Author Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 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 Posted 19 January 2020 Author Posted 19 January 2020 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 ........
Dan Posted 19 January 2020 Posted 19 January 2020 I just can't brandish it as bollocks. It's not perfect but it's not rubbish.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.