And a different audience. Although I would actually like to know more, a mate was asking me about that the other day and I didn't really have the foggiest. I thought it had something to do with including the impact of defenders' positioning but didn't really know.
Xg is a stat that gives some sort of hope that maybe just maybe walter can turn it around We at least create good chances
Bookies yes, because they'll use anything they can to make money. Actual football clubs..... Behind the scenes, all I hear is it's a stat for sky and interviews
xG is rubbish in the same way digital currency is rubbish, or electric cars, or synthetic footballs that don’t weigh 100kg when they’re wet. It’s a stat that would have been near impossible or at least ridiculously tedious and expensive to collate without modern technology to heavily assist, which is why it’s a relatively new thing. And obviously it’s a far more useful metric than shots and shots on target, trying to argue otherwise is a fallacy. Might as well argue carburettors are better than fuel injection.
Plus one of the reasons we love football is A team can have 50 shots Xg of 15.0 And still lose the game David v goliath n all that But over 30 games, its a good indicator of a teams quality
That already happens. It's a key part of the modern philosophies favoured by the likes of Guardiola, De Zerbi, and at a lower level Rosenior and Tim Walter. Which is why a goalkeeper who can kick is so important to them, they want to be able to take advantage of a high line and play their attackers in behind it. And when the defence is scared of that, they maybe don't press you as well, so you have a threat for them to worry about whatever they do. This is what we signed Rushworth to bring. It requires accurate, considered long passing though. We're not going to see a return to keepers just booting it as high as they can and hoping that it stays down the other end.
I think this makes sense. You wouldn't need to employ teams of analysts if they were looking at something as basic as xG. They'll be dealing with much more detail than that surely. Doesn't mean Syd is wrong though, it has its place and it has its flaws. There are people who inflate its importance and there are people who are excessively upset by it.
Think this is the big measure and you’re correct. Weirdly Boro are 2nd on Net xG but are 11th in the table despite having decent strikers
Kind of. It’s a metric used to measure how good the chance is based off the shot quality. xG bases its likelihood primarily based off shot location etc. xGOT factors in the quality of the strike. So Drameh’s goal against QPR was I think a 0.1 xG chance but he made it a 0.3 xGOT as the strike was fairly good
They do, our first shot on target on Tuesday night was one, the commentator described it as more of a back pass, it had less power than a dead AA battery. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Neither does..."The useless twat couldn't hit a barn door with a *ucking banjo".(which could apply to most of our front-line at present). XG's,what a load of bollox!!
There’s an element of subjectivity but generally speaking it’s measuring the shot quality and adding that into xG which previously didn’t measure that.
And how is the xG worked out? How is the ratio decided? It Tom Eaves was in the same position as Mo Salah would the xG be the same?
Take a 35 yard shot Across hundreds of games, almost all 35 yard shots are not goals Its a very low xg Its still possible to score from 35 yards
Yes they'd be the same, because that's what it's designed to measure: the likelihood of an average player scoring that shot. And of course, that needs to be factored into how the stat is used.
