We've mulled over the XG debate in the last week or so, and the general concensus ended up being "No ****! it's obvious we haven't created enough, we don't need XG to tell us that" That said, I've just seen this graphic, and it's pretty damning to the guy who has been our solo striker for 8 starts, and you can see why Pedro is getting the nod. please log in to view this image
Haji Wright was star in Turkish League, even Gala decided to bid on him for backup striker for couple of millions, I don't know how we missed him in winter transfer for couple of millions and let him sign for a competitor from our hinterland in summer.
I'm sort of surprised by that because I don't remember him missing loads of sitters, it's more his general play that concerns me. When he heads the ball it goes absolutely anywhere. Pedro is clearly much more of a poacher. Bedia always had the profile of a striker who ends up failing at City, just like Walter always had the profile of a manager who fails at City.
I don't recall many clear-cut chances myself, but it's clear he wasn't suited for our strategy of spamming crosses. He impressed me in a couple of games with his hold-up play, but a player like that needs a nippy number 10 to lay the ball off to, and we just don't seem to play that.
Messi would look **** if we did the same to him. We should be playing to the strengths of the players we have. How many times have we finished a game and had a successful crosses stat of about 15%?
His xG is 0.5 , he should be scoring a goal every 2 games so if you actually set any store by the graph you posted then he's ****
Genuinely don't recall him having many scoring chances, so surprised it'd be anywhere near as high as 0.5xg per 90
OK, just checked, and looks like he's been plotted wrong? His Non Pen XG is 3.3 He's played 738 mins, which is 8.2 lots of 90. 3.3/8.2 = 0.402 It's still one of the worst but not as bad. https://fbref.com/en/players/ec11ecf8/matchlogs/2024-2025/Chris-Bedia-Match-Logs
Left side of graph is correct though, so he should be a bit on the left at same height. Right next to El Ghazi.
Taking that further, I've looked at everyone else who has had 10 shots. Coyle hasn't been plotted as he'd be right in the bottom left corner, and Mehlem hasn't scored. Of the rest, Belloumi is orange, Millar is blue, and Slater is yellow. Pedro has only had 6 total shots, 2 on target, and 2 goals. his XG is only 0.6 total. Zambrano and Drameh have also scored 100% of their shots on target, as apparently has Palmer, because for some reason a penalty doesn't count... please log in to view this image
Put some data into Ai and compared last season to current- Comparing Hull City’s shooting stats and xG from last season (2023/24) with the current season (2024/25), it becomes clearer that their finishing efficiency has dropped, which is affecting their overall goal-scoring output. Shots per Match • 2023/24: 10.54 overall (11.43 at home, 9.65 away) • 2024/25: 10.53 overall (10 at home, 11.14 away) Observation: Hull City is taking almost the same number of shots per match in both seasons. The shot volume hasn’t changed significantly. Shots on Target per Match • 2023/24: 5.96 overall (6.04 at home, 5.87 away) • 2024/25: 4.53 overall (4.38 at home, 4.71 away) Observation: Shots on target have dropped from nearly 6 per match last season to 4.53 this season. This reduction in accurate shooting suggests that Hull City is struggling with accuracy, leading to fewer quality chances. Shots Conversion Rate • 2023/24: 14% overall (13% at home, 15% away) • 2024/25: 10% overall (10% at home, 10% away) Observation: The conversion rate has dropped from 14% to 10%, indicating less efficiency in finishing. Hull City is taking more shots to score each goal, reflecting a decline in finishing quality. Shots per Goal Scored • 2023/24: 7.13 shots per goal (7.51 at home, 6.73 away) • 2024/25: 9.88 shots per goal (10 at home, 9.75 away) Observation: Hull City now requires nearly 10 shots to score one goal, up from 7.13 last season. This inefficiency is a clear indication of scoring struggles, as they’re converting fewer chances into goals. Shots on Target per Goal Scored • 2023/24: 4.03 shots on target per goal (3.97 at home, 4.09 away) • 2024/25: 4.25 shots on target per goal (4.38 at home, 4.13 away) Observation: They need slightly more on-target shots to score a goal this season, showing that even when they hit the target, they’re not finding the net as frequently. Expected Goals (xG) • 2023/24: 1.42 xG per match overall (1.53 at home, 1.3 away) • 2024/25: 1.34 xG per match overall (1.31 at home, 1.38 away) Observation: xG has dropped slightly, which suggests a small reduction in the quality of chances created. However, the difference isn’t large enough to explain the significant drop in goals scored—meaning the issue is more about finishing rather than chance creation. xG Against • 2023/24: 1.33 xG Against per match overall (1.18 at home, 1.48 away) • 2024/25: 1.4 xG Against per match overall (1.29 at home, 1.52 away) Observation: xG Against is only slightly higher this season, so the defense is relatively stable. The primary issue remains on the offensive side. Summary The stats reveal that Hull City’s main issue this season is not generating fewer chances but rather converting them. Key takeaways include: • Lower Shot Accuracy: Shots on target have decreased, indicating that Hull City is less accurate in their shooting. • Declined Finishing Efficiency: Their shots conversion rate has dropped, requiring more attempts to score each goal. • Finishing Underperformance: Their actual goals scored are below the expected goals (xG), showing that they’re underperforming in finishing relative to the quality of chances created. Conclusion Hull City’s primary issue this season is ineffective finishing. They’re creating chances at a similar rate to last season, but they’re less accurate and less efficient in front of goal. Improving shot accuracy and conversion should be their focus, as addressing this could lead to significantly better results without needing drastic changes to their overall playstyle.
Something most of us could figure out without needing a plethora of stats to come to that conclusion.
The stats back up the idea that while we're esentially creating a similar amount of chances as last season, we're not as clinical putting them away. The kicker is that last season despite we actually overperformed, bettering our xG by 20%. We were only 12th by xG, but carried by players like Philogene and Carvalho who were capable of pulling a rabbit out a hat, like when Carvalho scored 2 against Cardiff despite his xG being 0.3 This season we unfortunately don't seem to have players who can regularly conjure a goal out of nowhere
I might be missing something here but at first glance I thought that was a map of the D-Day Normandy landings.What a load of claptrap! I agree,stats are important in modern day football but surely there is a case for overdoing it?
