I was talking about consistency in finishing.
So was I.
I think there have been quite a few narrow wins that should have been emphatic and a few draws that should never have been.
xG really says otherwise. We have more wins that have been more emphatic than they should have been, than we have wins that are less emphatic than they should have been.
1. A low xG indicates that we are not creative enough which is still largely indicative of our attack not being strong enough.
Yes, but we don't have a low xG.
We are largely a counter-attacking team so the creativity largely rests with the front four attacking players.
Actually, that's not really the case. Our goals are fairly evenly divided between counterattack goals, goals on penalties and set pieces and goals from established play.
You might blame Ole for this, but wherever the blame lies, the point simply is, this attack is not performing at title-challenging levels.
We have scored the second most goals in the PL - only Liverpool has more.
2. Overperforming your xG is never a good sign. It implies some good fortune or a short spell of unsustainable good form that sooner or later will revert to a level closer to your xG.
Well then, if so then the point that makes is that our finishing has been so good that we can't realistically expect it continue to be as good as it has been, which is the opposite of the point you are making. The point you make is true, but it is also the case that if you're overperforming your xG then by definition your finishing is clinical.
However, I would not see this as a very big issue - we aren't overperforming our xG by that much. 13 teams have scored more goals than their xG suggests, and we're more or less in the middle of that pack. Only Southampton has really strongly overperformed its xG 8 (by more than 8!).
3. Going off my memory alone, and I'm sure you will agree, Martial and Rashford have missed a notable number of easy chances. So maybe we outscored xG but still, there is a finishing issue.
No, that's exactly what there isn't. That's why you should use statistics instead of emotive judgments based on individual moments that made an impression on you. Everyone misses a number of clear chances. The point is the frequency.
The combined output of the top 4 attackers per title-challenging club:
Liverpool: 29
Tottenham: 28
Utd: 23
City: 17
Leicester: 26
Chelsea: 17
Well, if the point is team success, then it hardly matters if it's your top 4 attackers scoring the goals or if it's somebody else. And as mentioned, we are 2nd in PL scoring, and outperforming our xG.
Whether individual players have met expectations is of course a different matter. Rashford has 13 goals in all competitions if my count is correct, which is hardly cause for worry halfway through the season. But Martial and Greenwood one would obviously expect much more from. Cavani too has not added much to the tally yet. But that doesn't point to a team weakness - rather it points to a clear potential to do even better than we have so far.