Exactly mate. I like xG but those 3 shots show it is flawed. Even if it only takes into account shots from that position, how is isidors position going in 43% of the time but mayenda in the 6 yard box is 18% of the time?
XG is basically irrelevant and only of any real interest to the likes of Sky and 'stat fanatics. No club, or manager, would ever sign or sell a player based on XG. It may give the coaches an idea of which areas, of a player's game, they should work on which is fine. But looking back over the most prolific strikers you'd find that they're all different and defy XG. Some are useless with their head, like Mayenda so far, and some can't manage a one on one with the keeper. If Mayenda and Isidor can't head the ball tell the wingers to pass on the ground ... yes I get that but a good coach shouldn't need stats to identify that. Some need a constant supply of deliveries to score their goals ... ... others are seemingly making little contribution then bang in the winner. I remember going to Hillsborough in 2000 and watching a game Sheff Wed needed to win to stave off relegation. Sunderland, with Quinn and Phillips up front, didn't have a sniff of a goal except an effort by Micky Gray, it was really boring. Minutes from the end Phillips picked up a ball about 25 yards out, looked up and screamed a curler, over the entire defence and Kevin Pressman, into the top corner. The winner! A minute later he ran through their defence to get onto a pass along the line for an easy tap in. Any scout looking at Phillips would probably have left before he scored ... 'to beat the traffic'
I agree with them that Isidors was the easiest chance, not by the distance they have it but it's the easiest. This is what Opta use to calculate their xG numbers The big one is the players between the player shooting and the goal, only the GK is between Isidor and the goal whereas outfield players are between Watson and Mayenda and the goal, that makes the chance a lot harder. xG is flawed. There's a load more metrics that can be and are used within football clubs. Annoys me that xG is the one that has made it to the mainstream.
Dont know much about xg, but they are all sitters in my opinion. The Watson one maybe excusable because of Isidor fresh airing it in front of him, maybe wasnt expecting it. Mayendas is a gimme in golf terms. Isidor has to hit the target from there. But players make mistakes, they are human, and in part it is what makes the game so intereating. Thankfully none if them mattered, and more importantly for me we created much more. Hopefully the cf lads start gobbling up these sort of chances.
Thinking the same thing yesterday, where has the high press gone.Its like watching a different team. It hasnt just happened overnight it has been a gradual process.
Except, in a gale force wind and horizontal rain the golf game wouldn't go ahead ... ... I excused virtually everything yesterday, it was a game for the brave and we showed plenty of courage.
Absolutely not what I seen mate but fair enough, every single time he go the ball he passed back or cut inside he seems scared to take on his man and never drives down the line or puts a first time cross in. That's what I want to see from a winger getting down the like and whipping a ball in or having a pop. He does neither for me.
To be fair AI might help you with grammar, spelling and punctuation Only joking mate, don't pm a virus to my laptop!
So in theory Mayenda and watson should only score once in 5 from those chances? They should be burying them 100 out of 100 for me anyway. Wilsons maybe 2 from 3 in my opinion anyway.
I think like all stats, it’s how you use it that’s important. xG has its place but it’s overused and over emphasised
People are looking at xG all wrong. Fans should look at it in the same way clubs do, clubs aren't looking at individual chances they are looking at season long performance. If a club is looking to sign a striker, they will 100% look at their xG numbers for the last few seasons. It can really help find some gems who fly under the radar. For example, a club may be looking at 2 players who have both scored 10 goals this seasons, one has a total xG of 5, the other has a total xG of 15. Now you obviously have to factor other things in when deciding between the two players but purely from an xG standpoint, you have one player who is clearly a good finisher but may not be getting the chances to score even more at his current club or they aren't getting into the positions needed to get better chances and you have another player who is not scoring at the rate they should be but is either in a team that is creating a lot for them and is getting into good areas but isn't finishing the chances. xG is not a deciding factor, it's just a guide. Another way it is used is to help teams and coaching staffs to improve chance creation at their club. Brentford for example have worked this season on having fewer shots but having the shots they do have in better areas, Thomas Frank has spoken about this in the media. So instead of taking a 25 yard shot they will instead aim to play the extra pass and create a more clean opportunity. They do this because the xG numbers told them it would be more effective for them and considering they are the joint top scorers in the league i'd say it's worked. If you think xG is bad or wrong then you need to go and tell that to people who run our club, because we use it and so does pretty much every club in world football now. Because it helps. It's not going to tell you all the answers but it will help get you to the correct conclusion when used properly and in conjunction with other metrics. Sorry for the ramble, just take issue with people making out like my line of work is pointless simply because THEY are the ones using the data incorrectly. I started a data thread on here a few weeks ago to try and stop this kind of stuff
No offence but I think you're looking at it totally wrong, football fans should watch football for the joy and excitement of it. We have absolutely no say in signings, selections or substitutions so should just allow ourselves to get carried away with it all. We're in a football ground, not at the office ... ... some of the most exciting players we've ever had are 'the mavericks' who defy all the stats you can throw at them and thrill us with their play. Reducing everything to stats and analysis isn't good for the game, it kills it just like VAR has done. I've been to football matches with amateur coaches and analysts but it's dreary ... ... just like going to gigs with musicians who analyse each chord and guitar break without ever seeing the sheer joy and emotion. XG has never, and will never, enhance anyone's enjoyment of football. Pretending an understanding of XG makes the game better is missing the point so much it would be described as 'an absolute sitter' in real life. No offence but most people follow their team to escape the humdrum, not replicate it.
I think there’s a difference here between using it to enhance enjoyment of football vs using it to enhance analysis of football. Stats will never make anyone “enjoy” it more. That’s not the purpose of stats. But they will always be useful if used properly to analyse performance and clubs should absolutely be using the data, and fans should be able to use the data to analyse as well if they wish. People not caring or not understanding the data doesn’t make that data useless to people who do care about it.
It enhances mine. It's lead to employment and meeting people I will call friends for life. If it's such an issue then I won't post about it anymore. Sorry for ruining your enjoyment of football, didn't mean to do so. Sorry to anyone else who feels the same.
.I thought Watson's was the actually easiest!! Absolute tab in along the ground. Mayenda the second and Wilson's the third.
Dear me, don't be so bloody touchy ... it's just my opinion to which I'm as entitled as anyone. Nothing will ruin my enjoyment of football, this board or anything else ... ... and nothing wrong with stats as long as their not used to endlessly try to prove points and other people wrong .... 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is a well-known phrase that describes how statistics can be used to support weak arguments. It is also used to question the validity of statistics used to support an opponent's point.'
