New Manager

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Steven Toast said:
For those that don't really get it, it's used to determine how well a club or player is doing based on their performance in that season. xG is calculated based on how likely a team or player is to score over 90 minutes (or a season once it begins) based on their contributions to goals during games.

For example, Haaland at the moment has an xG of 1.1, meaning if he maintains his form and nothing changes, he'll score a goal every game, with the extra 0.1 adding an extra goal every ten games. So carrying on in this way, he's most likely going to end up on 41 goals. He could get a season ending injury, in which case it would drop to zero. Usually very good players hover around 0.8-1.0. If you think of it as percentages, it tells you the chances of them scoring.

Our highest xG player is Oscar (shocker) with 0.7. So if he plays 90 minutes, there's a 70% chance he'll score.

At club level, it's easier, xG gives you an idea of the attacking threat a team poses. Norwich sit top of the xG rankings for the Championship with 2.02 goals per game.

It'll come as no surprise that we're ranked 23rd in the league with 0.97, with Reading propping up the table and Huddersfield just above us. We're the worst ranked for goals against, with 1.78 per game. In fact we're worst ranked for nearly everything at the moment.
Click to expand...
But also every chance has an XG rating as well. For instance an open goal with the ball on the goal line would have an XG of 0.99. Whereas a first time volley from 40 yards on the half turn would be something like 0.001. The only issue I have with it is at some point it has to be subjective as there’s so many variables to the average chance. It’s a very good tool but it’s not definitive. Micheal cox (the athletic) and Rory Smith (New York times) both explain XG really well for the layman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steven Toast
Kevin Francis said:
But also every chance has an XG rating as well. For instance an open goal with the ball on the goal line would have an XG of 0.99. Whereas a first time volley from 40 yards on the half turn would be something like 0.001. The only issue I have with it is at some point it has to be subjective as there’s so many variables to the average chance. It’s a very good tool but it’s not definitive. Micheal cox (the athletic) and Rory Smith (New York times) both explain XG really well for the layman.
Click to expand...
But it’s not subjective. The xG rating is based on the percentage of similar chances leading to goals in every other match assessed. So as time goes on, the accuracy if the xG rating gets higher.
 
AlRawdah said:
But it’s not subjective. The xG rating is based on the percentage of similar chances leading to goals in every other match assessed. So as time goes on, the accuracy if the xG rating gets higher.
Click to expand...
Yes but no two chances are the same. The amount of variables are too great. Wet pitch. Windy day. Uneven pitch. Crowd noise. How set the player is before they take their shot etc etc. I’m not saying it’s not a good tool. I think it’s great to be honest. I just mean it’s not clear cut and there’s a degree of subjectivity
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and highpeak tiger
highpeak tiger said:
assessed subjectively by a human. OK it may be very useful, but I would hardly call it mathematical
Click to expand...
That’s wrong, the people doing the assessments have very rigorous guidelines to work to. But if you’re convinced it’s rubbish then I’m not here to dissuade you. It’s just that every pro club uses these data, and I doubt they are all misguided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigerboy98
So we don't have (anymore) shot on target = either saved/blocked or goal scored or shot off target = **** ****, couldn't hit a barn door it he tried?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kempton
mauled1904 said:
So we don't have (anymore) shot on target = either saved/blocked or goal scored or shot off target = **** ****, couldn't hit a barn door it he tried?
Click to expand...
That’s reported for every game on the BBC website and a zillion other places. So yes.
 
mauled1904 said:
So we don't have (anymore) shot on target = either saved/blocked or goal scored or shot off target = **** ****, couldn't hit a barn door it he tried?
Click to expand...

How do they know whether or not it was on target, or accuracy of pass if they don't know what the player was aiming at?

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: mauled1904
DMD said:
How do they know whether or not it was on target, or accuracy of pass if they don't know what the player was aiming at?

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

I have heard after much studying of analytics and xGs that Liverpool have been told by the experts that it looks as though Haaland could be a bit of a threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ric Glasgow and TwoWrights
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back