Orikoru
Tour Winner
No it's Ange bringing Angeball to Forest. He will absolutely not defend a lead under any circumstances. "It's who we are mate."
Orikoru
Tour Winner
My layman's understanding would be: every chance or shot is given a calculated value of how likely it was to be a goal. So an open goal tap-in would have an xG of 1.0 I suppose, since it's incredibly unlikely to miss. I've just Googled the xG of a penalty and it's 0.79 - pretty high since you're quite likely to score a penalty. If a shot is taken from outside the box or from a tight angle, the xG would be a lot lower, it might only 0.1 or something. So then the overall team's xG is all of these shooting opportunities added together. If they've created zero chances then their xG would be pretty much zero as well.
If the team's xG is much lower than their actual goals total, that would suggest to me they scored a couple of screamers from outside the box, but created very little other chances. Hence the xG rating might have only been 0.1 or 0.2 for each, but they went in. On a similar note, if you take a striker who's xG number is lower than the number of goals he has scored, that suggests he's a good finisher who has scored from some difficult chances.
Swango1980
Well-known member
I believe we had this chat before. And concluded it is all a bit basic and rubbish.
If you play 20 amazing balls across the box, but the striker narrowly missed connecting with it (think Gazza against Germany at Euro 96) all those opportunities would add up to 0.00. But if you have an ambitions strike from miles out, there will be some sort of number assigned to the xG for that, albeit low. An own goal counts for 0.00 xG as well.
From what I see, you could basically have a team that can play some really breathtaking build up play, and giving themselves many opportunities to score. BUT, if their final ball is just not on it that day, their xG is very low, because they never (rarely) end up getting a shot away. But, if they still convert a couple of chances, which in themselves would be less than 50/50 (I guess many are less than 50/50, given more chances are missed than scored), then they still score 2 or 3 goals, but their xG is very low.
I would love to see a comparison stat. Actual Goals versus xG, given for many many games. In the long run, they should balance out to be the same number. But, I suspect actual goals is higher than xG
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Well here it is for the season so far.
I've ordered it by 'xG difference'. So we can see that Tottenham have finished chances very well so far, or scored some nice goals that were unlikely to go in. Whereas Man Utd have played well enough to create a few chances, but been crap and getting it in the net. Even worse than a team with zero goals, amusingly.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Further to the above, and to provide some balance - if a team is vastly out-performing their xG like Spurs are, I believe this also suggests that their current form might not last and they will trail off a little bit. Unless it's because they have a world class striker knocking in chances left, right and centre (not the case for Spurs).
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
But we *were* defending. But just being absolutely absymal at it.
Not like we were caught out defending on the halfway line...the one time we got caught out Jair Cunha got carried away and sprinted into the Swansea 18 yard box, got a ball squared to him and absolutely fluffed it - I don't think they scored from that opportunity.
Swango1980
Well-known member
It is the opposite of what I expected, in that xG is generally higher than actual goals. Although I suppose if you have a club like Villa who ultimately fail to put the ball in the back of the net at all, then their xG will always be higher than actual goals.Well here it is for the season so far.
View attachment 59467
I've ordered it by 'xG difference'. So we can see that Tottenham have finished chances very well so far, or scored some nice goals that were unlikely to go in. Whereas Man Utd have played well enough to create a few chances, but been crap and getting it in the net. Even worse than a team with zero goals, amusingly.
Man Utd's xG must be so high because of the first half against Burnley. That might contribute to about 6.00 of this xG alone.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
You're probably right. In Spurs' only loss, against Bournemouth, we had barely any shots all game - so the same thing in reverse.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
The most sensible thing I heard yesterday was that any team playing in Europe shouldn’t be playing in the Carabo cup.!
JonnyGutteridge
Newbie
I’m not convinced by xG either because it fundamentally doesn’t make that much sense. Some good examples above.
Take Semenyo’s goal at Anfield a few weeks ago. He received the ball a few yards outside his own box, ran the length of the pitch and scored. The xG was something like 0.25 going from memory.
But realistically, the xG was 0.00. The fact that he is class and turned it into a shot of 0.25xG by running the length of the pitch…
For it to be particularly meaningful, you’d need to factor in hundreds of other variables.
People say it shows quality of chances created… But if a defender plays a dodgy pass back and the striker scores, that has a very high xG but the team hasn’t even created the chance?
Take Semenyo’s goal at Anfield a few weeks ago. He received the ball a few yards outside his own box, ran the length of the pitch and scored. The xG was something like 0.25 going from memory.
But realistically, the xG was 0.00. The fact that he is class and turned it into a shot of 0.25xG by running the length of the pitch…
For it to be particularly meaningful, you’d need to factor in hundreds of other variables.
People say it shows quality of chances created… But if a defender plays a dodgy pass back and the striker scores, that has a very high xG but the team hasn’t even created the chance?
4LEX
Well-known member
4LEX
Well-known member
It's not meant to be perfect. It's designed to give insights into the quality of chances a team creates. The beauty of football is that a team could create loads and lose to a wonder goal. However, over a long run the teams with the higher xG will score more and win more games.
The xG method described earlier is actually how things were over a decade ago, things have become more advanced. Expected Goals by Rory Smith is worth a read.
Don Barzini
Assistant Pro
There’s something to be said for that idea.
It guarantees a new winner of the competition each year for one thing. There might be an argument that it “devalues” the competition but I think we’re one of the few countries that has a league cup anyway. Don’t think (m)any of the other “big” leagues have one do they? (Do correct me if I’m wrong!)
Slime
Tour Winner
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Those playing in European competitions won’t be in any domestic leagues or cups in the next decade or so
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Hope you are right but I remain to be convinced.
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
XG is just a construct to allow pundits and journalists to waffle on and suck the life out of football and make it feel like homework rather than sport.
In real life it’s only quoted by absolute
s when their team has lost.
In real life it’s only quoted by absolute
s when their team has lost.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
There is only two stats that matter - goals scored and goals conceded
Don’t care about the rest
Don’t care about the rest
Swango1980
Well-known member
And nett spend
