No, I'm simply answering the question "How many big chances did we and West Brom create?". A big chance has a relatively high chance of being converted into a goal; that's not at all the same as saying it "should" have been converted. To look at it in terms of the xg of the chance, Crnac's big chance had an xg of 0.43, meaning the average striker would convert it 43% of the time, i.e. the average striker has a greater chance of not converting it than converting it. "Should have" is simply not a useful concept to employ in this context.
I understand xg Robbie, but what you have explained so well is that based on the chances created the probability is that we should won. Welcome aboard the positivity train Robbie!
More to the point might be the fact that Heggebo's late miss was the only shot they had in the second half while they parked the bus in front of their own goal.
Am I missing something here. We were the home side so we should have had more chances, more shots etc etc but more importantly we should have scored more goals - we didn't score any - and we should have won - we f*****g well lost for the 5th home game on the trot!!! How long does it take to coach new players to understand that the idea is to put the ball between the wooden sticks at both ends of the ground, Didn't they learn that at their previous Clubs. We are stuck with another Ange and Amorim.
It’s not a coaching problem if the players miss the chances created is it? Yes we lost, but on another day we would have taken all the points
Our xg was higher than there’s which means on average given the chances for both sides the probability is that we win…maybe you need to think about it some more
