| Town are bottom but one of the PL table 15:10 - Nov 4 with 1672 views | Radlett_blue |
for the non-penalty xG difference per game this season.
Make of that what you will, but if we hadn't nicked late winners in a couple of games, the League table would send a similar message.
Palace are bottom; Hull & Coventry are in the bottom 6 as well.
Long way to go & it sure looks like being an interesting season. |  |
| |  |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:21 - Nov 4 with 1584 views | dirtyboy |
The table moves quickly this time of year still and even the OPTA predicted table puts us 16th, but on 43.68pts compared to Coventry in 18th on 40.85pts.
That's 3 points difference between survival and relegation. I said at the start of the season I think 4 or 5 teams could still get relegated on the final day and it's looking like that could happen.
Key thing to us all is that Ipswich are passing the 'eye' test and that's encouraging.
Whilst Forest was a bit of a lucky result, unbelievably we could have nicked a point at City and that wouldn't have been undeserved, we played really well.
I still think Fulham will struggle, I don't think Forest will stay below us for much longer, so Ipswich, Hull, Sunderland, Coventry, Palace and Fulham are all in for a big fight for survival.
Will be nice to be in with a shot of staying up and if we fall short, it won't be for lack of ambition or trying. I'm already happy with how things are going, even though it's tighter than a duck's ar*e in the league.
I also think Emersonn will go on a bit of a run of goals at some point, convinced! Even though his career so far doesn't suggest it, I believe he's going to really take off at some point. |  | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:27 - Nov 4 with 1530 views | HighgateBlue |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:21 - Nov 4 by dirtyboy |
The table moves quickly this time of year still and even the OPTA predicted table puts us 16th, but on 43.68pts compared to Coventry in 18th on 40.85pts.
That's 3 points difference between survival and relegation. I said at the start of the season I think 4 or 5 teams could still get relegated on the final day and it's looking like that could happen.
Key thing to us all is that Ipswich are passing the 'eye' test and that's encouraging.
Whilst Forest was a bit of a lucky result, unbelievably we could have nicked a point at City and that wouldn't have been undeserved, we played really well.
I still think Fulham will struggle, I don't think Forest will stay below us for much longer, so Ipswich, Hull, Sunderland, Coventry, Palace and Fulham are all in for a big fight for survival.
Will be nice to be in with a shot of staying up and if we fall short, it won't be for lack of ambition or trying. I'm already happy with how things are going, even though it's tighter than a duck's ar*e in the league.
I also think Emersonn will go on a bit of a run of goals at some point, convinced! Even though his career so far doesn't suggest it, I believe he's going to really take off at some point. |
And then of course there's the Man City charade to factor into things.
Hopefully we are not reliant on any penalty being meted out in their direction in order to stay up.
It's in our hands, as they say. |  | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:41 - Nov 4 with 1453 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:27 - Nov 4 by HighgateBlue |
And then of course there's the Man City charade to factor into things.
Hopefully we are not reliant on any penalty being meted out in their direction in order to stay up.
It's in our hands, as they say. |
All we can do, is to keep collecting points, nothing more than that.
The fact we've scored a few late goals I'm finding a little annoying from the point of view of listening to commentators and pundits, all of which seem to have latched onto that now.
The only stat I'm interested in between now and May is; 'Points gained from a losing position' for which we are currently top. |  |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:41 - Nov 4 with 1463 views | Steve_M |
Fits with my view that we are conceding way too many really crap goals at the moment, and a lot more opportunities that better opposition will start taking if we aren't careful.
We may be better than two seasons ago but I'm not sure that we look like a PL team yet. Some lovely players and great passages of play but we don't have any sort of control of matches so far this season. That needs to improve a bit to stay up I think. |  |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:46 - Nov 4 with 1420 views | homer_123 |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:41 - Nov 4 by Steve_M |
Fits with my view that we are conceding way too many really crap goals at the moment, and a lot more opportunities that better opposition will start taking if we aren't careful.
We may be better than two seasons ago but I'm not sure that we look like a PL team yet. Some lovely players and great passages of play but we don't have any sort of control of matches so far this season. That needs to improve a bit to stay up I think. |
I would suggest on viewing todays match, it's quite evident by homer_123 31 Oct 19:46that going forward, we look a handful and likely to cause any team a problem or two.
I do really like how we play both in transition and in possession. There's a purpose and energy about us, there is a lot to like.
That said, GON hasn't, as of yet, sorted us out at the back. It's always a balancing act. Tighten and shore up at that back and you give up a little going forward. Look to be more progressive and attacking, you are more open for the opposition.
I think most would have taken a draw at Hull before the game but it does feel a little like 2 points dropped today, which is a shame.
However, the single most evident aspect on display today, these boys do not stop or give up. There is a belief amongst the lads, a really feeling that there is always a way to get something from the game. Could easily have ended up with no points today but they dug in, again.
Lots to take away from today both in terms of where we need to improve but also plenty of positives to build on.
|  |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:46 - Nov 4 with 1423 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:41 - Nov 4 by Steve_M |
Fits with my view that we are conceding way too many really crap goals at the moment, and a lot more opportunities that better opposition will start taking if we aren't careful.
We may be better than two seasons ago but I'm not sure that we look like a PL team yet. Some lovely players and great passages of play but we don't have any sort of control of matches so far this season. That needs to improve a bit to stay up I think. |
We had total control of the Hull game for 45 minutes plus, but, like you said, too many really crap goals.
Odd that the players we've been linked with for January have thus far been attacking players, I suspect we'll see a maximum of two come in, both on loan with an option/obligation, both with a lot of Premier League or European top tier experience, with one being a left sided central defender. [Post edited 4 Nov 15:48]
| |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 16:09 - Nov 4 with 1293 views | dirtyboy |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:46 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
We had total control of the Hull game for 45 minutes plus, but, like you said, too many really crap goals.
Odd that the players we've been linked with for January have thus far been attacking players, I suspect we'll see a maximum of two come in, both on loan with an option/obligation, both with a lot of Premier League or European top tier experience, with one being a left sided central defender. [Post edited 4 Nov 15:48]
|
Hull was a bit of a nightmare and the other one is Man Utd where Nunez slipped, so I do think we were desperately unlucky on that one.
We saw last night what United team are like when they get a chance and how quickly things can turn around at Old Trafford, sadly were were one of those teams that were desperately unlucky in how we let them in, not through lack of quality, wasn't even a mistake, but moments change games and that changed.
Let's see what the performance is like against Bournemouth, I think that will really give us a much better indicator. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 16:12 - Nov 4 with 1280 views | Smoresy |
Agreed, also cautious about our excellent start. We're a mid-table team offensively and a strong candidate for the bottom three defensively. If nothing changes then hopefully that would see us safe more often than relegated, quite a bit more often I'd hope given the live Citeh issue, but it should become increasingly 'interesting' as the season unfolds. 🤞 we may improve at the back without losing our bite up front; make things less so. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 16:15 - Nov 4 with 1254 views | jasondozzell |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:21 - Nov 4 by dirtyboy |
The table moves quickly this time of year still and even the OPTA predicted table puts us 16th, but on 43.68pts compared to Coventry in 18th on 40.85pts.
That's 3 points difference between survival and relegation. I said at the start of the season I think 4 or 5 teams could still get relegated on the final day and it's looking like that could happen.
Key thing to us all is that Ipswich are passing the 'eye' test and that's encouraging.
Whilst Forest was a bit of a lucky result, unbelievably we could have nicked a point at City and that wouldn't have been undeserved, we played really well.
I still think Fulham will struggle, I don't think Forest will stay below us for much longer, so Ipswich, Hull, Sunderland, Coventry, Palace and Fulham are all in for a big fight for survival.
Will be nice to be in with a shot of staying up and if we fall short, it won't be for lack of ambition or trying. I'm already happy with how things are going, even though it's tighter than a duck's ar*e in the league.
I also think Emersonn will go on a bit of a run of goals at some point, convinced! Even though his career so far doesn't suggest it, I believe he's going to really take off at some point. |
Great post. I agree - the most encouraging thing is seeing how we play. We're brave, organised and positive.
We've been 'in' all the games so far - no sense of us lacking belief when we go behind.
The big thing for me this season is Lukic, Palacios in midfield. It gives us control and helps to set up attacks. Two years ago we never really ever controlled games from midfield.
Enersonn has been sensational. Hold up and link up play superb. He just needs that run of goals as you say. |  | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:29 - Nov 4 with 897 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
It’s always easy to find a stat that makes any team look bad (or good). For example, we’re 4th in the table for Actual Goals vs xG. This suggests we’re taking our chances well relatively, which is key in the PL.
Always more informative to look at a blend of stats, which is what the predicted table shows.
We’re doing ok on a range of metrics right now, and our predicted position is 15th, but still with a 24% chance of relegation. Which feels about right - still much risk, but if we carry on as we are, we have a good chance of survival. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:33 - Nov 4 with 881 views | Guthrum |
Tho that might be just an indication that our last-ditch defending is better than expected*, while our shooting is surprisingly efficient.
* Or other Prem teams are woefully sloppy in front of goal. |  |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:34 - Nov 4 with 890 views | bsw72 |
xG is flawed as a method of meaningful analysis.
An xG model looks at thousands of past shots and gives a new one a probability based on things that are easy to record: distance, angle, body part, the type of pass before it, whether it was a counter or a set piece. A lot of what decides whether the ball goes in is left out. Most public models know little or nothing about where the defenders were, where the keeper was standing, how much pressure the shooter was under, or how fast and true the ball arrived.
Data providers handle this differently, so the same match can produce noticeably different xG figures on which company's numbers you read. A statistic that changes with the supplier is an estimate, not a fact, and it rarely gets presented with that caveat.
The model also only counts shots. A chance that never becomes a shot scores zero: the cutback intercepted at the last second, or the striker who reads it a fraction late and never makes contact. A side that builds attacks patiently and keeps getting into the box without pulling the trigger looks less threatening than a side that hits everything from 25 yards. Game state also skews the figures. A team two goals up sits deeper and gives away a pile of low-quality efforts, while the team chasing the game adds to its total without ever looking like scoring.
Then there is the arithmetic. Adding xG up across a match treats ten shots at 0.1 as equal to one open goal at 1.0. They are not equal. The open goal almost always goes in, while ten 0.1 chances give you roughly a two-in-three chance of scoring at least once. So "they won the xG 2.1 to 1.4" can hide a game in which the losing side had the only clear-cut opening.
I could go on . . . but doubt many have got this far. |  | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:37 - Nov 4 with 870 views | bsw72 |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 15:41 - Nov 4 by Steve_M |
Fits with my view that we are conceding way too many really crap goals at the moment, and a lot more opportunities that better opposition will start taking if we aren't careful.
We may be better than two seasons ago but I'm not sure that we look like a PL team yet. Some lovely players and great passages of play but we don't have any sort of control of matches so far this season. That needs to improve a bit to stay up I think. |
Surely the fact that we have yet to keep a clean sheet is the most obvious indicator. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 20:00 - Nov 4 with 802 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:34 - Nov 4 by bsw72 |
xG is flawed as a method of meaningful analysis.
An xG model looks at thousands of past shots and gives a new one a probability based on things that are easy to record: distance, angle, body part, the type of pass before it, whether it was a counter or a set piece. A lot of what decides whether the ball goes in is left out. Most public models know little or nothing about where the defenders were, where the keeper was standing, how much pressure the shooter was under, or how fast and true the ball arrived.
Data providers handle this differently, so the same match can produce noticeably different xG figures on which company's numbers you read. A statistic that changes with the supplier is an estimate, not a fact, and it rarely gets presented with that caveat.
The model also only counts shots. A chance that never becomes a shot scores zero: the cutback intercepted at the last second, or the striker who reads it a fraction late and never makes contact. A side that builds attacks patiently and keeps getting into the box without pulling the trigger looks less threatening than a side that hits everything from 25 yards. Game state also skews the figures. A team two goals up sits deeper and gives away a pile of low-quality efforts, while the team chasing the game adds to its total without ever looking like scoring.
Then there is the arithmetic. Adding xG up across a match treats ten shots at 0.1 as equal to one open goal at 1.0. They are not equal. The open goal almost always goes in, while ten 0.1 chances give you roughly a two-in-three chance of scoring at least once. So "they won the xG 2.1 to 1.4" can hide a game in which the losing side had the only clear-cut opening.
I could go on . . . but doubt many have got this far. |
I read to the bottom, because it’s an interesting discussion.
I would agree that xG can be misleading (flawed) for a single game, but over a longer stretch and certainly a season, the statistical basis of the model does provide valuable insight into what should have been.
I also agree that models do vary, but the best ones do far than you suggest. They will consider (and you do mention several of these):
Distance from goal- Closer shots generally have higher xG.
Angle to goal - A central position usually offers a better chance than a narrow angle.
Body part- Headers generally have lower conversion probabilities than shots with the foot.
Type of assist - A through ball, cross, cutback or pass can influence the quality of the chance.
Type of attack- Open play, corners, free kicks and penalties have different scoring probabilities.
Defensive pressure - The presence and proximity of defenders can reduce the likelihood of scoring.
Goalkeeper position - A goalkeeper position can decrease/increase the probability.
One-on-one situation- Being through on goal can significantly increase xG.
The best models also consider :
Whether the shot was first-time or required controlling the ball.
Whether it followed a rebound.
The position of defenders between the shooter and goal.
The height and trajectory of the ball.
In general though, xG is trumped by Post-shot xG (PSxG or xGOT).
So yes, treat the source of the metrics carefully, but there are good models out there. Any that use Opta Analysis as there source are generally pretty solid. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 20:22 - Nov 4 with 743 views | bsw72 |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 20:00 - Nov 4 by SuffolkPunchFC |
I read to the bottom, because it’s an interesting discussion.
I would agree that xG can be misleading (flawed) for a single game, but over a longer stretch and certainly a season, the statistical basis of the model does provide valuable insight into what should have been.
I also agree that models do vary, but the best ones do far than you suggest. They will consider (and you do mention several of these):
Distance from goal- Closer shots generally have higher xG.
Angle to goal - A central position usually offers a better chance than a narrow angle.
Body part- Headers generally have lower conversion probabilities than shots with the foot.
Type of assist - A through ball, cross, cutback or pass can influence the quality of the chance.
Type of attack- Open play, corners, free kicks and penalties have different scoring probabilities.
Defensive pressure - The presence and proximity of defenders can reduce the likelihood of scoring.
Goalkeeper position - A goalkeeper position can decrease/increase the probability.
One-on-one situation- Being through on goal can significantly increase xG.
The best models also consider :
Whether the shot was first-time or required controlling the ball.
Whether it followed a rebound.
The position of defenders between the shooter and goal.
The height and trajectory of the ball.
In general though, xG is trumped by Post-shot xG (PSxG or xGOT).
So yes, treat the source of the metrics carefully, but there are good models out there. Any that use Opta Analysis as there source are generally pretty solid. |
You’re right that the better models go well beyond distance and angle. Freeze-frame data showing the defenders and the keeper at the moment of the shot is a real step forward. But adding inputs doesn't answer the main criticism, and a couple of your points help my case.
Take "what should have been". Even over a full season, xG doesn't measure that. It measures what an average player would have done with the same chances. Good strikers and good goalkeepers are better than average season after season, so the gap between xG and actual goals is partly skill, not bad luck waiting to even out. A bigger sample reduces the noise. It doesn't remove the assumption that every shooter is average.
The extra variables give a sharper estimate for each shot, but they don't fix the structural problems. The model still only counts chances that end in a shot, so a cutback cleared at the last second still counts for nothing. Totals are still sums of probabilities, so ten half-chances still look the same as one sitter. Game state still inflates the figures for the team that's chasing. A better shot model on the same framework still has the same blind spots.
Post-shot xG is the part I find most interesting, because it supports my argument. It exists because where the ball ends up, meaning the finishing, matters enough to need its own number, and that is exactly what pre-shot xG leaves out. PSxG also only covers shots on target, so anything blazed over the bar drops out. It's a good tool for assessing keepers and finishers, but it measures something different and doesn't rescue xG as a measure of chance quality.
As for Opta, I don't doubt their data collection is sound, but the model is proprietary. Trusting the reputable supplier isn't the same as being able to check the method.
I agree there are good models, and over a season they're useful for spotting trends. My objection is to treating a useful indicator as a record of what should have happened, which is how xG gets used on Match of the Day and in most post-match threads and when modelling different “league” tables. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 20:42 - Nov 4 with 681 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 20:22 - Nov 4 by bsw72 |
You’re right that the better models go well beyond distance and angle. Freeze-frame data showing the defenders and the keeper at the moment of the shot is a real step forward. But adding inputs doesn't answer the main criticism, and a couple of your points help my case.
Take "what should have been". Even over a full season, xG doesn't measure that. It measures what an average player would have done with the same chances. Good strikers and good goalkeepers are better than average season after season, so the gap between xG and actual goals is partly skill, not bad luck waiting to even out. A bigger sample reduces the noise. It doesn't remove the assumption that every shooter is average.
The extra variables give a sharper estimate for each shot, but they don't fix the structural problems. The model still only counts chances that end in a shot, so a cutback cleared at the last second still counts for nothing. Totals are still sums of probabilities, so ten half-chances still look the same as one sitter. Game state still inflates the figures for the team that's chasing. A better shot model on the same framework still has the same blind spots.
Post-shot xG is the part I find most interesting, because it supports my argument. It exists because where the ball ends up, meaning the finishing, matters enough to need its own number, and that is exactly what pre-shot xG leaves out. PSxG also only covers shots on target, so anything blazed over the bar drops out. It's a good tool for assessing keepers and finishers, but it measures something different and doesn't rescue xG as a measure of chance quality.
As for Opta, I don't doubt their data collection is sound, but the model is proprietary. Trusting the reputable supplier isn't the same as being able to check the method.
I agree there are good models, and over a season they're useful for spotting trends. My objection is to treating a useful indicator as a record of what should have happened, which is how xG gets used on Match of the Day and in most post-match threads and when modelling different “league” tables. |
In general I think we have a similar view - and I fully agree that xG is overused, overvalued and far less indicative of anything useful than several other metrics. This is why I often post that xGOT is a better metric to consider than xG. But even it cannot be relied on as a single metric for the reasons you suggest - blocked shots, etc. For a truly revealing assessment you need to analyse all attempted shots, and what the result was. This data is available, but very time-consuming to analyse. | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:01 - Nov 4 with 507 views | Wacko |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 16:12 - Nov 4 by Smoresy |
Agreed, also cautious about our excellent start. We're a mid-table team offensively and a strong candidate for the bottom three defensively. If nothing changes then hopefully that would see us safe more often than relegated, quite a bit more often I'd hope given the live Citeh issue, but it should become increasingly 'interesting' as the season unfolds. 🤞 we may improve at the back without losing our bite up front; make things less so. |
Statistically we're top 7 offensively with the same number of goals as Arsenal | |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:11 - Nov 4 with 468 views | HighgateBlue |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:37 - Nov 4 by bsw72 |
Surely the fact that we have yet to keep a clean sheet is the most obvious indicator. |
I think it's just us and Man U who have failed to keep a clean sheet. Not the greatest of company right now! | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:13 - Nov 4 with 458 views | HighgateBlue |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 19:34 - Nov 4 by bsw72 |
xG is flawed as a method of meaningful analysis.
An xG model looks at thousands of past shots and gives a new one a probability based on things that are easy to record: distance, angle, body part, the type of pass before it, whether it was a counter or a set piece. A lot of what decides whether the ball goes in is left out. Most public models know little or nothing about where the defenders were, where the keeper was standing, how much pressure the shooter was under, or how fast and true the ball arrived.
Data providers handle this differently, so the same match can produce noticeably different xG figures on which company's numbers you read. A statistic that changes with the supplier is an estimate, not a fact, and it rarely gets presented with that caveat.
The model also only counts shots. A chance that never becomes a shot scores zero: the cutback intercepted at the last second, or the striker who reads it a fraction late and never makes contact. A side that builds attacks patiently and keeps getting into the box without pulling the trigger looks less threatening than a side that hits everything from 25 yards. Game state also skews the figures. A team two goals up sits deeper and gives away a pile of low-quality efforts, while the team chasing the game adds to its total without ever looking like scoring.
Then there is the arithmetic. Adding xG up across a match treats ten shots at 0.1 as equal to one open goal at 1.0. They are not equal. The open goal almost always goes in, while ten 0.1 chances give you roughly a two-in-three chance of scoring at least once. So "they won the xG 2.1 to 1.4" can hide a game in which the losing side had the only clear-cut opening.
I could go on . . . but doubt many have got this far. |
Yes, you make so many good points. How many goals you're Xpected to score depends on who's doing the Xpecting, and how sophisticated their models are. Many pinches of salt all round for the reasons you've given.
However, I don't understand the 10 0.1 chances adding up to a 2/3 chance of a goal. If that is factual, then surely that just illustrates that the particular model has misallocated a probability. If each chance should genuinely be allocated 0.1 then 10 of those should clearly yield one goal. Am I missing something? | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:28 - Nov 4 with 421 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:13 - Nov 4 by HighgateBlue |
Yes, you make so many good points. How many goals you're Xpected to score depends on who's doing the Xpecting, and how sophisticated their models are. Many pinches of salt all round for the reasons you've given.
However, I don't understand the 10 0.1 chances adding up to a 2/3 chance of a goal. If that is factual, then surely that just illustrates that the particular model has misallocated a probability. If each chance should genuinely be allocated 0.1 then 10 of those should clearly yield one goal. Am I missing something? |
Statistically over a big enough sample, yes. However, you need to look at the probability for a sample of 10, assuming each shot is an independent event with a 10% scoring probability:
Goals scored : Probability
0 34.9%
1 38.7%
2 19.4%
3 5.7%
4 or more 1.3%
Probability of scoring at least once: 65.1%
Probability of scoring no goals: 34.9%
So roughly only 2/3rds of a 10 shot sample with xG 0.1 results in a goal (or more). | | | |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 23:54 - Nov 4 with 313 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
In many respects for a promoted team, we’re too open, play high and have the worst goalkeeping situation in the league but none of that will matter if we win enough games. Saturday was a gut punch in that sense as was the first one where we came out on the wrong side of a game that we should have got a better return. Another two points would have been huge, especially with the fixtures ahead.
Everton away I don’t buy we should have got something despite being in the game, they had more chances and a goal that should have stood. United, we got crushed second half, whatever happened with the slip.
There is little doubt in my mind we will take another hammering at some point, could even be Sunday. We are certainly a good watch and with the talent in midfield and further up the pitch we can do have the ability to go toe to toe with many in the league and if the opposition isn’t on their game we can certainly hurt them.
I am worried about our lack of control though, as I said Saturday we are very close to being very good but but about 2-3 players short. If City get the punishment they deserve I think we are staying up, if not I think it will be close and January will be important. [Post edited 4 Nov 23:59]
|  |
| |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 00:28 - Nov 5 with 262 views | Smoresy |
| Town are bottom but one of the PL table on 22:01 - Nov 4 by Wacko |
Statistically we're top 7 offensively with the same number of goals as Arsenal |
We're joint 5th for goals scored with two others, 13th for "expected goals", 17th for total shots, 11th for shots on target, 14th for "big chances", and 4th for conversation rate (14.14%).
So it's a mixed picture and points closer to mid-table I'd suggest. The chances we create have so far been higher quality and tucked away expertly, compared to average. But we're also creating notably fewer chances than "7th offensively", and our quality across positions makes it likely that our conversion rate will drop over the course of the season - if we maintain this scoring rate then we have every chance of finishing as the most clinical team in the league (no team converted above 14% of shots last season). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
