xG seems to be the poster boy stat for analytics and data in general, at a time when such things are becoming more prevalent. I'm not convinced that data-driven clubs like Brentford are really spending much time looking at xG specifically, I'd imagine it's much more specific and detailed stuff they're looking at. From what I can tell, xG is just a simple, high-level representation of chance creation that's a bit more reliable than shots on target.
I’ve only got/had one denture, I lost the ****er on the dance floor in Prop, cost me £250 to replace! It was an expensive but epic and very messy night out out.
Deffo. I’d say it’s pretty commonplace now. Data driven clubs will be going much much deeper than XG. I heard one the other day and I can’t remember the name for it but it’s basically a measure for how many times a player does something that they wouldn’t be expected to do in a given situation. Making them unpredictable. These analysts certainly go in deep. Still room for the good old eye test in my opinion though, the underlying data just separates the wheat from the chaff.
But how the hell do you measure unpredictable, sometimes it can be great and outwit the opposition or score an own goal
To make it worse Denise LaSalle was singing ' dont you mess with my tooth tooth'! The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
It's certainly a more reliable metric to judge players on than the old "Go to wikipedia, look at goals scored in games played and draw a conclusion on striker's ability".
