Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

League One xG table

balham red
balham red Posts: 1,278
edited August 2024 in General Charlton


21st place for xG
2nd place for xGA
1st for least goals expected in our games

Worth noting that 2 out of the 3 teams that have a worse xG than us, are because they played us!
«13456789

Comments

  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,319
    Good to see Rotherham are taking their chances.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,851
    Boring Boring Charlton  ;)
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,270
    I mean this means almost nothing after 2 games. Revisit it at the end of October and it's going to give a much clearer picture 
  • balham red
    balham red Posts: 1,278
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Good to see Rotherham are taking their chances.
    I saw the replies on their Twitter account after the last game echoing just that!
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,008
    What a load of shite.
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,850
    Relegation form
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,850
    Covered End said:
    What a load of shite.
    Are you more of an "assist to the assist" man?
  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,741
    I hate this XG thing . It’s total nonsense and that table proves it. 
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,376
    Bedsaddick said:
    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.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,807
    efficient 
  • Stu_of_Kunming
    Stu_of_Kunming Posts: 17,118
    Bedsaddick said:
    I hate this XG thing . It’s total nonsense and that table proves it. 
    Explains why clubs spend a small fortune tracking it. 
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,729
    edited August 2024
    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.
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,459
    Not a clue.

    Anyone else?
  • stonemuse
    stonemuse Posts: 34,004
    carly burn said:
    Not a clue.

    Anyone else?
    None whatsoever
  • balham red
    balham red Posts: 1,278
    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.





  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,856
    I am more interest in the shots and on/off target stats. 

    I see we have only had 15 shots but 11 have been on target. 
    Suggests we are struggling to create chances but are making the goalie work when we do. 

    Most other clubs have had a lot more chances than us 
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,338
    There are only three crucial tables to look at this season. So far, so good... 


  • RC_CAFC
    RC_CAFC Posts: 1,756
    Bedsaddick said:
    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.
  • balham red
    balham red Posts: 1,278
    Suggests Wrexham might have been a bit flukey so far also.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Bostonaddick
    Bostonaddick Posts: 814
    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
  • Hal1x
    Hal1x Posts: 4,265
    Henry Irving said:
    Covered End said:
    What a load of shite.
    Someone should create a table based on games won, drawn and lost

    0 points for a defeat, 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win.

    Don't be so ridiculous.
  • lancashire lad
    lancashire lad Posts: 15,626
    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"
  • balham red
    balham red Posts: 1,278
    lancashire lad said:
    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.
  • Manic_mania
    Manic_mania Posts: 2,259
    balham red said:
    lancashire lad said:
    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)
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    Hal1x said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Covered End said:
    What a load of shite.
    Someone should create a table based on games won, drawn and lost

    0 points for a defeat, 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win.

    Don't be so ridiculous.
    Ok, two points for a win then
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,015
    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.
  • RC_CAFC
    RC_CAFC Posts: 1,756
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    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.
  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,285
    Can someone please tell me how Xg and Xa are even calculated please. 
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    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. 

Categories

“Marketplace”