Our xG must be ridiculous in this game. 3 absolute sitters missed.
United and xG (now that Ole is gone will things change?)
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Different sources, different stats. Caley has their Dendonker chance as a bigger chance then Lukaku's, McTominay's and Lingard's headers (his model massively undervalues headers). Understat has it at Wolves 1.65 - 2.04 United. Was 1.19 for Wolves til that last minute counter attack miss from Cavaleiro as well which was obviously one of those chances when we are throwing people forward. But either way. Still plenty of chances, just didn't take them.
Plenty early on, but after the first goal conceded there wasn’t a massive amount.
1.17 in that opening 25 minutes. 0.87 after that. We basically missed 3 sitters throughout the match, and a decent amount of half chances as well. But scored a nothing chance. Wolves missed 1 big chance, scored 1 big chance, and got a completely random own goal. That's just how it goes some times.
Our football post-PSG has made me bloody miserable, but Understat's table for the time under Ole is making me feel a bit better:
Why has this team lost motivation on the brink of being in top 4. Real professionalism by the players.
We’ve not had the right games since PSG. Going to Arsenal right after PSG was a nightmare and it’s completely killed our flow and momentum.
Isn't xG on its face utterly useless?
A shot from the exact same spot where a striker may be facing an open net is a completely different shot from that same spot where he's surrounded by four defenders and a perfectly positioned keeper.
It's not the location of the shot that really matters -- although closer is generally better than farther -- but the amount of pressure on the striker at the moment in time he takes the shot.
You'd flog the same striker who missed on an open net from the same spot a striker was surrounded by four defenders. You wouldn't flog the striker who has to beat four defenders and a keeper.
A shot from the exact same spot where a striker may be facing an open net is a completely different shot from that same spot where he's surrounded by four defenders and a perfectly positioned keeper.
It's not the location of the shot that really matters -- although closer is generally better than farther -- but the amount of pressure on the striker at the moment in time he takes the shot.
You'd flog the same striker who missed on an open net from the same spot a striker was surrounded by four defenders. You wouldn't flog the striker who has to beat four defenders and a keeper.
It should hardly be an excuse though. We have shot ourselves in the foot with this wolves defeat. We will have to play in Europa league if we lose a single game from here.
It's not losing motivation. It's natural regression. We arent capable of winning the title yet, but our form under Ole has been title winning form. It's just regressing to what the norm should be for us, which is basically 3rd place pace. Unfortunately we needed title winning form the entire way to get top 4 based on where we were. So we'll see what happens.
That's all taken into account. But theres a lot of things that arent. It's a stat that measures that quality of chances and they claim that over a period of time it should be relatively accurate compared to where a team should be.
Defensive pressure and number of opponents between player and goal are both variables in the xG formula. It is not as simple as distance to goal times x equals xG. There are about 20 other variables.
We were never as good as we thought we were and were quite lucky in a few matches.
We played well yesterday up to the sending off at least and should have scored 1-2 more goals. Against Arsenal we had plenty of chances too.Our football post-PSG has made me bloody miserable, but Understat's table for the time under Ole is making me feel a bit better:
The first game against Wolves was terrible though in the cup.
Good point, well made.
Not much difference in xG between the teams, we had 0.55 and xG had 0.59. If it wasn't for Dr Gea, we wouldn't have lost that.
City were pretty poor themselves. Only 8 attempts. Like you say, weak goalkeeping and poor finishing cost us the game. Worse still is that they could bring such weak form and have a routine victory.
Our attack was not great, but people slating us for that performance are crazy. It was an even game against the best side in the league even if they had the ball more.
Calm down lads - we should be top o thee league
https://understat.com/league/EPL/2019
https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2019
https://understat.com/league/EPL/2019
https://understat.com/team/Manchester_United/2019
United 2-1 Chelsea
Wolves 0-1 United
United 2-1 Palace
So we should be 3 for 3. No problems whatsoever then
Wolves 0-1 United
United 2-1 Palace
So we should be 3 for 3. No problems whatsoever then
Indeed. Remove just the Pogba, Rashford & de Gea errors and we'd all be wanking and calling ourselves title contenders right now
According to understat...
United 2.24 - 0.68 Palace
United 1.14 - 0.31 Wolves
United 2.37 - 1.10 Chelsea
Which seems about right. Not bad at all. Palace had 1 big chance and a half chance and that was basically it, scored 2 goals. Wolves had nothing, scored 1. Chelsea had a few, didn't score. United were clinical vs Chelsea as we all know but also created a good chunk of clear chances, but on the other hand weren't clinical against Palace at all, while we missed the pen against Wolves that would've been the difference in that game. It's small margins in football, so it's important to take this stuff over a longer period of time.
Last season we were overall 3rd in expected points under Ole, 3rd in expected goals, 6th in expected goals against compared to tied 5th/6th in real goals against, while United/Spurs/Arsenal had the same amount of real goals, tied in 4th (behind Palace surprisingly with 1 goal more), and then of course 3rd in the league during his time here in real points. So it's pretty accurate over a longer period, but helps give context during good runs or bad runs that the truth lies somewhere in the middle for both. So yeah, we had the rub of green over the first 3 months, while the last 2 months we really didn't get the rub of green. Anyway, I like the use of the stat far more than just looking at shots, shots on target, possession or whatever else, as the whole point of any tactical system is to create better quality chances and reduce the quality of chances the opposition gets. The rest is down to the players to finish it and decide the key moments.
United 2.24 - 0.68 Palace
United 1.14 - 0.31 Wolves
United 2.37 - 1.10 Chelsea
Which seems about right. Not bad at all. Palace had 1 big chance and a half chance and that was basically it, scored 2 goals. Wolves had nothing, scored 1. Chelsea had a few, didn't score. United were clinical vs Chelsea as we all know but also created a good chunk of clear chances, but on the other hand weren't clinical against Palace at all, while we missed the pen against Wolves that would've been the difference in that game. It's small margins in football, so it's important to take this stuff over a longer period of time.
Last season we were overall 3rd in expected points under Ole, 3rd in expected goals, 6th in expected goals against compared to tied 5th/6th in real goals against, while United/Spurs/Arsenal had the same amount of real goals, tied in 4th (behind Palace surprisingly with 1 goal more), and then of course 3rd in the league during his time here in real points. So it's pretty accurate over a longer period, but helps give context during good runs or bad runs that the truth lies somewhere in the middle for both. So yeah, we had the rub of green over the first 3 months, while the last 2 months we really didn't get the rub of green. Anyway, I like the use of the stat far more than just looking at shots, shots on target, possession or whatever else, as the whole point of any tactical system is to create better quality chances and reduce the quality of chances the opposition gets. The rest is down to the players to finish it and decide the key moments.
It vindicates Ole a little but raises question in player quality. I’m thinking specifically De Gea, how many points has he cost us now letting in saveable goals? Bit like Bravo in Peps first season.
I posted a graphic last night which clearly showed we took most of t the shots within the box. This is what most of the people were referring to as breaking down team. We were let down by quality more than anything else.
I hope you are right.
Fergie tended to have a knack for selling a player at the right time. I think he would have been thinking of selling De Gea and signing a new goal keeper.
Positivity on the caf, a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Last season I think many were looking at and expecting to just be a one off bad run of form after years of quality, so he has built himself a good bit of lee-way. But we'll see. That's honestly one of the biggest worries I have about us right now, because that mistake yesterday was just really bad. If it's a one off this season and he goes back to his normal self, then all good. But it's something to keep an eye out for during the season. The bad part is it's his last season on the current contract, so we have to make a decision on extending or moving on. Tough position to be in whatever way you look at it, but I'm still on the side of let him find his form again as he's definitely deserved that over the years here.
Maguire is expected to assist more goals than Lingard. How can Lingz still be here 
He'll end up signing that obscene contract and continue to fall off a cliff, such is our luck these days.
Instead of using our salty tears for lubricant.
Have we won the xG cup then?
I think this has come home to roost since our bad run of form from Arsenal last season.
We had a lot go for us early on with Ole and we've regressed back to the mean and we've struggled mightily.
We had a lot go for us early on with Ole and we've regressed back to the mean and we've struggled mightily.
We will win the xG table
But it is quite clear that we loose points because we make horrible mistakes in the defence and concede goals from almost nothing. It's not like teams counter us, or pin us down and create chances till we concede.
xG isn't going to do much for you when you have no-one capable of hitting the back of the net.
Eh?
Southampton and Wolves both had us pinned back after half time for a brief period before scoring. We just start playing like underdogs and clearing the ball back to them.
You always get pined back, but usually it's not for a long time and during these time they didn't create much (I am talking about Palace and Southampton games, I have not seen the Wolves game). The goals we conceded had nothing to do with pressure teams have put on us.