| xG 13:11 - Nov 2 with 1536 views | selondonblue23 |
I like xG. I think it’s a useful indication of the quality of chances you create, although obviously like all stats it’s not the be all and end all.
Very surprised to see though we registered 0.56xG from open play yesterday - the second Hirst goal alone is surely a goal 8 times out of 10. If not more. And the first one, albeit harder, I would have thought to be 0.3 perhaps. But for those two combined to only equal 0.56, and that’s before you factor in other half chances (Philogene volley, Egeli shot over the bar).
Can anyone more intelligent than me explain or is it just a not very useful statistic…?
I can’t really see how they’re at 1.55 by the same metric…
Anyway. Hugely enjoyed yesterday, sat amongst very disgruntled QPR fans who had to admit in the second half that we were very good. |  | | |  |
| xG on 13:19 - Nov 2 with 1415 views | Herbivore |
I'm definitely baffled by Hirst's second being so low. A striker doesn't miss an open goal from two yards out very often. He does well to get himself in the right position but once he's gone up and the ball reaches him, it's the headed equivalent of a tap in. |  |
| |
| xG on 13:22 - Nov 2 with 1394 views | Bellevue_Blue |
I was also perplexed by that. As you say, surely most headers two yards out go in.
I would guess that with headers, a lot of those similar chances get poor contact or blocked and that is backed up in the xGOT (similar shot on target) which was 0.92.
Even the two headers that Charlton had, the xG for their second and third goals was 0.19 and 0.63 which felt low given it was basically an empty net!
On their xG 1.55 it's a little bit misleading because the Burrell goal had an xG of 0.83. [Post edited 2 Nov 13:24]
| | | |
| xG on 13:27 - Nov 2 with 1368 views | TractorJack |
It won't always tell the full picture of an individual game. It's more useful for long term trend analysis. I am a bit surprised Hirst's second wasn't higher too but headers (or strictly speaking shots from certain heights) will always have a lower probability. The main reason theirs is higher is because the goal was worth 0.83. |  | | |
| xG on 15:25 - Nov 2 with 1146 views | SheffordBlue |
While the xG models have got better since they were introduced there are still lots of factors that aren't included.
I don't think at the minute any of them include the flight of the ball. If you look at headed chances from where he was and where the defenders are (which are included in most of the models) I suspect most crosses come in at much flatter trajectory and therefore the defender is more likely to get something on it.
Furlong standing the ball up like he did made it easier for Hirst to beat the defender. | |
| |
| xG on 15:33 - Nov 2 with 1118 views | positivity |
after the qpr goal, our xG stood at 0.1 on the bbc. so hirst's first was not even close to 0.3 weirdly... | |
| |
| xG on 15:51 - Nov 2 with 1070 views | bsw72 |
xG is a flawed statistic because it reduces the complexity of football to probabilities that ignore real-world context. It’s built on averages and past data, not live factors like pressure, positioning, or player instinct. Different models produce different numbers, so consistency is questionable. The fact that an xg calculation will produce the same result for me as it would Haaland shows it’s more guesswork than science. |  | | |
| xG on 16:03 - Nov 2 with 1002 views | Illinoisblue |
| xG on 15:51 - Nov 2 by bsw72 |
xG is a flawed statistic because it reduces the complexity of football to probabilities that ignore real-world context. It’s built on averages and past data, not live factors like pressure, positioning, or player instinct. Different models produce different numbers, so consistency is questionable. The fact that an xg calculation will produce the same result for me as it would Haaland shows it’s more guesswork than science. |
It’s why xG is best ignored. A stain on the game. |  |
| |
| xG on 16:05 - Nov 2 with 988 views | nrb1985 |
| xG on 13:19 - Nov 2 by Herbivore |
I'm definitely baffled by Hirst's second being so low. A striker doesn't miss an open goal from two yards out very often. He does well to get himself in the right position but once he's gone up and the ball reaches him, it's the headed equivalent of a tap in. |
You not see Josh Sargent yesterday then? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| xG on 16:07 - Nov 2 with 960 views | FrimleyBlue |
Could it be because in most cases with the 2nd goal defenders would usually get a head to it? or is the xg based on when he actually heads it? |  |
| |
| xG on 17:07 - Nov 2 with 867 views | flykickingbybgunn |
| xG on 16:07 - Nov 2 by FrimleyBlue |
Could it be because in most cases with the 2nd goal defenders would usually get a head to it? or is the xg based on when he actually heads it? |
I confess that I am completely baffled about what xg means.
Can somebody explain it in words of one syllable or less.
Ta. |  | | |
| xG on 18:12 - Nov 2 with 741 views | Leutard |
| xG on 15:51 - Nov 2 by bsw72 |
xG is a flawed statistic because it reduces the complexity of football to probabilities that ignore real-world context. It’s built on averages and past data, not live factors like pressure, positioning, or player instinct. Different models produce different numbers, so consistency is questionable. The fact that an xg calculation will produce the same result for me as it would Haaland shows it’s more guesswork than science. |
xG is not a measure of how likely any one individual player is to score a given chance, it is an average. It will then tend to show you that above average strikers either outperform their xG, or have a very high xG from getting themselves into good positions. In the case of you and I, it would show that we dramatically underperform our xG
It is essentially one statistical measure amongst a whole host of them, and not intended to be read in complete isolation | | | |
| xG on 19:45 - Nov 2 with 606 views | BloomBlue |
Sounds a bit like VAR.
Idea was sensible but the execution is cr@p and ultimately pointless |  | | |
| xG on 19:50 - Nov 2 with 595 views | BasingstokeBlue |
I don't understand it and nobody has managed to explain it adequately - indeed, none of the "explanations" are even the same. |  |
| |
| xG on 20:06 - Nov 2 with 552 views | Kievthegreat |
| xG on 19:50 - Nov 2 by BasingstokeBlue |
I don't understand it and nobody has managed to explain it adequately - indeed, none of the "explanations" are even the same. |
Based on previous data, when a shit is taken from a given location in a certain scenario (number of players on the pitch, etc), xG is the ratio of times that shot will be a goal.
Using penalties as the easiest example, if 70% of penalties are scored, the xG would be 0.70. xG grades the average chance from that position, it doesn't take into account the player's skill, so a player outperforming their xG suggests they are better at finishing than the average player.
EDIT: It obviously should say shot, but I'm not changing it! [Post edited 2 Nov 22:47]
|  | | |
| xG on 20:17 - Nov 2 with 522 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
As I posted yesterday, xGOT is a much better measure of chances that should result in goals. Yesterday our xGOT was 2.56, far higher than the less useful xG
”xG is a pre-shot metric that estimates the probability of a chance resulting in a goal based on factors like shot location and angle. In contrast, xGOT (expected goals on target) is a post-shot metric that evaluates the likelihood of an on-target shot being scored, taking into account the quality of the shot's execution (e.g., aiming for the corner vs. the middle) and the goalkeeper's position. Therefore, xG assesses the quality of the chance created, while xGOT measures what the player actually did with that chance” | | | |
| xG on 20:19 - Nov 2 with 507 views | BasingstokeBlue |
| xG on 20:06 - Nov 2 by Kievthegreat |
Based on previous data, when a shit is taken from a given location in a certain scenario (number of players on the pitch, etc), xG is the ratio of times that shot will be a goal.
Using penalties as the easiest example, if 70% of penalties are scored, the xG would be 0.70. xG grades the average chance from that position, it doesn't take into account the player's skill, so a player outperforming their xG suggests they are better at finishing than the average player.
EDIT: It obviously should say shot, but I'm not changing it! [Post edited 2 Nov 22:47]
|
That's one of the "explanations" I've heard. So how does a team's "xG" get predicted for a game? Nobody knows what situations they will encounter. | |
| |
| xG on 20:37 - Nov 2 with 440 views | Kievthegreat |
| xG on 20:19 - Nov 2 by BasingstokeBlue |
That's one of the "explanations" I've heard. So how does a team's "xG" get predicted for a game? Nobody knows what situations they will encounter. |
Each shot will have an xG attached, adding each attempts xG will give your teams total.
It's actually from an Ice Hockey match, but if you look at the "Story" it shows xG cumulatively increasing as each shot is taken. Meanwhile the shot map you can see each shot and how they've been graded.
https://www.eliteleague.co.uk/game/4744-not-cov/tracking | | | |
| xG on 21:41 - Nov 2 with 355 views | stonojnr |
| xG on 16:03 - Nov 2 by Illinoisblue |
It’s why xG is best ignored. A stain on the game. |
and yet people seem to think its some wondrous new way to explain football, but like all stats it can be very misleading. | | | |
| xG on 22:02 - Nov 2 with 296 views | StNeotsBlue |
| xG on 20:06 - Nov 2 by Kievthegreat |
Based on previous data, when a shit is taken from a given location in a certain scenario (number of players on the pitch, etc), xG is the ratio of times that shot will be a goal.
Using penalties as the easiest example, if 70% of penalties are scored, the xG would be 0.70. xG grades the average chance from that position, it doesn't take into account the player's skill, so a player outperforming their xG suggests they are better at finishing than the average player.
EDIT: It obviously should say shot, but I'm not changing it! [Post edited 2 Nov 22:47]
|
I'm even more confused now. What on earth has where someone has a dump got to do with anything?? |  | | |
| xG on 22:20 - Nov 2 with 242 views | Kievthegreat |
| xG on 22:02 - Nov 2 by StNeotsBlue |
I'm even more confused now. What on earth has where someone has a dump got to do with anything?? |
Well people do say it's a crap statistical metric. | | | |
| xG on 22:28 - Nov 2 with 204 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| xG on 20:06 - Nov 2 by Kievthegreat |
Based on previous data, when a shit is taken from a given location in a certain scenario (number of players on the pitch, etc), xG is the ratio of times that shot will be a goal.
Using penalties as the easiest example, if 70% of penalties are scored, the xG would be 0.70. xG grades the average chance from that position, it doesn't take into account the player's skill, so a player outperforming their xG suggests they are better at finishing than the average player.
EDIT: It obviously should say shot, but I'm not changing it! [Post edited 2 Nov 22:47]
|
Absolutely remarkable. I can't ever recall seeing one of those, although Gary Lineker did in a World Cup match once.
EDIT: Uppied for not changing the original on your edit! [Post edited 2 Nov 22:56]
|  |
| |
| xG on 22:32 - Nov 2 with 191 views | redrickstuhaart |
| xG on 15:51 - Nov 2 by bsw72 |
xG is a flawed statistic because it reduces the complexity of football to probabilities that ignore real-world context. It’s built on averages and past data, not live factors like pressure, positioning, or player instinct. Different models produce different numbers, so consistency is questionable. The fact that an xg calculation will produce the same result for me as it would Haaland shows it’s more guesswork than science. |
Indeed. And there is a massive subjective element, inevitably. | | | |
| xG on 23:21 - Nov 2 with 95 views | Bigalhunter |
| xG on 16:03 - Nov 2 by Illinoisblue |
It’s why xG is best ignored. A stain on the game. |
I remember Graham Potter, in possibly his last game as Chelsea manager, stating in the post match interview that he wasn’t bothered about McGinn’s winning goal for Villa, because it only had an XG of 0.08.
I was glad to see he got sacked very shortly after that and not surprised he made a pigs arse of the West Ham job either.
I’m sure the Swedish FA will take great comfort from a similar analysis as he explains that they should actually still be allowed into the World Cup next year because Kazakhstan’s winner in Stockholm was a statistical anomaly that doesn’t really count…
[Post edited 2 Nov 23:23]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
