Where have we heard that before? Incidentally McCann looks like he definitely needs a better plan A at the moment. Shipped 11 in the last 3, no win in 4, 20th in league 2. And some would prefer him to Rosenior.
As someone who works in the data scene it has gone a bit into overdrive recently. There are a lot of useful tidbits that have been made that do highlight performances when the score lines don’t quite match up. Like you say xG is great as an initial indicator of a game but you do have to watch it to get the eye test as it is still a relatively subjective stat. There are some stats that are beginning to emerge that really don’t belong. The game has tried more and more to follow Michael Beane’s model from moneyball fame but football in itself has some many fluid parts it makes some bins difficult to measure as opposed to baseball which is a rigid sport. If you ignore the stats you’ll get left behind. The beautiful game can still exist with stats I don’t get the weird hatred personally
People don't like what they don't understand. I don't like XG in punditry as it's used to make inferences which are, as you say subjective. If its used to identify trends over a longer term then fair enough, but if it's used in relation to a single game, then I'm far from convinced that's a robust enough dataset to be a reliable descriptor.
I fully understand stats and which ones are actually a metric you should use to look at teams and players, I also fully understand XG and it's complete and utter bollox.
What about it do you think is utter hollow HT OOC? As it is used to assess performance over an extended period with really good effect. Like Bournemouth for example xG showed this was coming if they kept playing the way they were.
Well. Maybe that wasn't directed at you/football professionals but the average fan in the stands or watching the telly, the only stats that really matter are goals for, goals against and points total. Certainly in coverage, I'm starting to feel that the actual narrative/story of the match is getting lost under a heap of stats. Not everyone is a statistician. Hence it pisses people off.
I also fully understand XG - doffs cap and tugs forelock. It is pleasing to note that one who understands this, as opposed to my eyes glaze over approach, comes to the same conclusion. bollox.
I suppose I should have said as a stand alone stat used on sky etc, it's bollox as you need to build a bigger picture using all the data leading up to it, the team and individual stats etc. XG in an individual game can be swung both positively and negatively by once in a blue moon performances etc.
Yeah I agree with this. Some use it to control the narrative when not watching the game. I’ll often check it after watching city to confirm what I saw or to maybe check some things but I think TV pundits are using it without really knowing it or incorrectly using it to tell the story of a game. Penalties being such a high xG shot really skew it for example. You get 2 pens and you’ve got 1.6 xG which on paper looks like you’ve performed well but you could have got two pens late on when 4-0 down.
I just LOVE reading statistics, so xG has added LOADS to my matchday experience (as did a nice chap at Vicarage Road once, but that's a different story)
I don't have a weird hatred of stats... I just don't look at them or pay any attention to them.The only 'statistic'(or matter of fact) in Football I remotely give a sh!t about is who's putting the ball in who's net. And I don't feel left behind at all.
xG is nothing more than an attempt to objectively measure which team has had the more/better chances. It can’t be used as a performance indicator. The only thing it’s useful for is saying that was a dominant victory or a smash and grab victory.
