I hate this XG thing . It’s total nonsense and that table proves it.
There’s value in using it the right way like there are in other metrics but it’s not the full story on its own and in this case it’s not one you can get anything from after only 2 games.
XG is a useful tool but that is it. There is a lot of other information that is just as important and if you only look at XG you may well miss the whole picture. I think average XG tells you much more over a fair number of games than it does in one or two.
It's a good indication of which team had the better of the play in terms of chances.
Statistically minded people will like it because looking purely at the scoreline will often not paint the picture of the match. For example, if Manchester City were shellacking Carlisle Utd's goal in the FA Cup for 90 mins, but it just won't go in, while Carlisle get a cheeky goal from their only shot, xG will tell us how the match played out aside from the 1-0 win for Carlisle.
When matches are decided by the odd goal, statistically there is a lot of "luck", or at least chance, involved. It's not perfect by any means, but xG attempts to show what the scoreline would be based on standard probability of the chances resulting in goals.
After 3 matches, we're still 21st for xG, and slipped to 4th for xGA.
The stats look encouraging for a Rotherham resurgence as unbelievably they've created the most goal worthy chances but scored 0.
Stockport look good for their high position in the table suggesting they are dominating their games.
I hate this XG thing . It’s total nonsense and that table proves it.
Agree it’s really not the be all and end all. But it definitely isn’t nonsense. Can give a good gauge on how a team is playing, whether or not they’re perhaps better than the league suggests or maybe running a little hot.
Just looking at one part of it is pointless as if you just looked at XG for, you’d say Charlton have been lucky but combined with the XG against, you can see it’s been very professional performances.
Shrewsbury, Wigan and Cambridge come out very badly and that is backed up by results.
As someone else has alluded to, it suggests Rotherham will not continue with this bad start. Which is a shame as we’re playing them in a couple of weeks.
Just one part of the analysis and I think it’s interesting.
Any statistical analysis after only 3 matches is useless in projecting results. One of the key tenants of statistics is to have enough data points to provide an accurate measure. Using xg now is like those health gurus using an n of 1 (usually on themselves) in analyzing the impact of diet and then telling the world that there is only one diet to be healthy. XG has proven to be a very useful tool in projecting results but doesn’t even make sense to use until another 6-8 results are in
Xg concentrates on the attack and seems to ignore the defence which really means that it only gives an indication of part of team's play and therefore should be considered in that light, which for me is "rubbish"
Xg concentrates on the attack and seems to ignore the defence which really means that it only gives an indication of part of team's play and therefore should be considered in that light, which for me is "rubbish"
Except there is xGA in the table - expected goals against, which shows our defence has been bloody good.
Xg concentrates on the attack and seems to ignore the defence which really means that it only gives an indication of part of team's play and therefore should be considered in that light, which for me is "rubbish"
Except there is xGA in the table - expected goals against, which shows our defence has been bloody good.
Yeah in XG against we would be joint 4th in that table. In this table at least, the XG against is not a factor to the position (which is stupid IMO)
If ever a table proved that xG and xGA is a bit of a nonsense then that is it.
Rotherham top of it, but 21st in the league table and haven't scored. Blackpool 7th but 22nd in the table and have conceded NINE goals. We are 21st but are 3rd in the league, won every game and haven't conceded.
If ever a table proved that xG and xGA is a bit of a nonsense then that is it.
Rotherham top of it, but 21st in the league table and haven't scored. Blackpool 7th but 22nd in the table and have conceded NINE goals. We are 21st but are 3rd in the league, won every game and haven't conceded.
Make it make sense.
As I said earlier, It doesn’t make it a nonsense, but simply shows a certain bit of data analysis.
Like any spreadsheet, you could pick any of those columns to sort in ascending or descending order.
The current column shows how many goals each team would have expected to have scored each game so far. But if you’d asked it to sort the orange column in ascending order then we’d have been 3rd because we’ve conceded very few clear cut chances.
The bold black column is possibly the most useful in terms of seeing if a team is creating more clear cut chances than it concedes.
As others have alluded, it’s too early to fully read too much into it at the moment. But it will never be a perfect fit for the league table.
If ever a table proved that xG and xGA is a bit of a nonsense then that is it.
Rotherham top of it, but 21st in the league table and haven't scored. Blackpool 7th but 22nd in the table and have conceded NINE goals. We are 21st but are 3rd in the league, won every game and haven't conceded.
Make it make sense.
It's just supposed to measure performance beyond the full-time result. The table would suggest that Rotherham have been a bit unlucky and are better than their form/position is suggesting. Same for Blackpool.
xG was invented by bettors who made a fortune with it. If we could go back in time, the bookies would be giving Rotherham higher odds in the next game because of their 'form', but the xG would suggest they're not playing badly, and so betting people might be lumping on.
Comments
0 points for a defeat, 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win.
Anyone else?
Statistically minded people will like it because looking purely at the scoreline will often not paint the picture of the match. For example, if Manchester City were shellacking Carlisle Utd's goal in the FA Cup for 90 mins, but it just won't go in, while Carlisle get a cheeky goal from their only shot, xG will tell us how the match played out aside from the 1-0 win for Carlisle.
When matches are decided by the odd goal, statistically there is a lot of "luck", or at least chance, involved. It's not perfect by any means, but xG attempts to show what the scoreline would be based on standard probability of the chances resulting in goals.
After 3 matches, we're still 21st for xG, and slipped to 4th for xGA.
The stats look encouraging for a Rotherham resurgence as unbelievably they've created the most goal worthy chances but scored 0.
Stockport look good for their high position in the table suggesting they are dominating their games.
Just looking at one part of it is pointless as if you just looked at XG for, you’d say Charlton have been lucky but combined with the XG against, you can see it’s been very professional performances.
Shrewsbury, Wigan and Cambridge come out very badly and that is backed up by results.
Just one part of the analysis and I think it’s interesting.
Rotherham top of it, but 21st in the league table and haven't scored.
Blackpool 7th but 22nd in the table and have conceded NINE goals.
We are 21st but are 3rd in the league, won every game and haven't conceded.
Make it make sense.
The bold black column is possibly the most useful in terms of seeing if a team is creating more clear cut chances than it concedes.
As others have alluded, it’s too early to fully read too much into it at the moment. But it will never be a perfect fit for the league table.
xG was invented by bettors who made a fortune with it. If we could go back in time, the bookies would be giving Rotherham higher odds in the next game because of their 'form', but the xG would suggest they're not playing badly, and so betting people might be lumping on.