United and xG (now that Ole is gone will things change?)

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,587
Location
Canada
Not necessarily. All of our forwards aren't exactly proven to be prolific, consistent goalscorers. Bad or average teams regularly underperform the xG they create. That's one of the points of xG. Whether you have more possession or not, that doesn't make you a better team, it's same with creating more xG than your opponent, but not actually finishing your chances.
Not really. If you take any random mid table team, say West Ham, this is their xG differential over the past few years:

18/19: G- 52 xG- 47.96 (4.04); gA- 55 xGA- 65.66 (10.66)
17/18: G- 48 xG- 36.80 (11.20); gA- 69 xGA- 58.37 (9.63)
16/17: G- 47 xG- 48.25 (1.25); gA- 64 xGA- 59.67 (4.33)

They overperformed in terms of goals for but underperformed in terms of goals against. Over/under performing your xG as a team doesn't mean much about the overall ability of the team. It means they haven't been clinical for that period of time, but it'll usually even out and the tide will turn eventually more often than not. In fact you'll regularly see turnarounds of form with teams who consistently create good xG/keep out the opposition but haven't been finishing well.
 

bucky

Full Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
9,572
Not really. If you take any random mid table team, say West Ham, this is their xG differential over the past few years:

18/19: G- 52 xG- 47.96 (4.04); gA- 55 xGA- 65.66 (10.66)
17/18: G- 48 xG- 36.80 (11.20); gA- 69 xGA- 58.37 (9.63)
16/17: G- 47 xG- 48.25 (1.25); gA- 64 xGA- 59.67 (4.33)

They overperformed in terms of goals for but underperformed in terms of goals against. Over/under performing your xG as a team doesn't mean much about the overall ability of the team. It means they haven't been clinical for that period of time, but it'll usually even out and the tide will turn eventually more often than not. In fact you'll regularly see turnarounds of form with teams who consistently create good xG/keep out the opposition but haven't been finishing well.
Err, yes really. A team that isn't clinical despite creating enough xG over prolonged period of time is not that good of a team, it's that simple. Saying otherwise is like saying the only thing that matters is creating chances, but not actually the finishing. Obviously if a team creates more than enough opportunities time after time, there's a good chance, the team will win most of the time. Over or underperforming xG absolutely has meaning in terms of ability. We had the biggest margin in terms of xG against in Europe in 2017/18. We conceded an xG against of 43.54 according to understat, but actually conceded 28 goals, largely thanks to de Gea. How was that not a direct correlation to his ability and form then?

Currently 11 teams in the EPL are underperforming xG with only 3 teams in the top half, last year it was 4 teams in the top half underperforming compared to the xG they generated out of the 10 teams that did underperform. In 2017/18 there were 9 teams underperforming, the majority in the bottom half. Good teams regularly outperform their xG, I didn't say that bad or average teams can't do that, too.

We are currently on pace for an xG figure of 63.59 in the league and if we keep our poor finishing up, then we are on pace for 50.67 goals, which would be a margin of 12.92. Nice under Vieira underperformed that same measure by 13.45 last season, so it's absolutely possible to underperform like that over a whole season. They finished 7th despite massively outperforming their xG against thanks to Walter Benitez.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,587
Location
Canada
Err, yes really. A team that isn't clinical despite creating enough xG over prolonged period of time is not that good of a team, it's that simple. Saying otherwise is like saying the only thing that matters is creating chances, but not actually the finishing. Obviously if a team creates more than enough opportunities time after time, there's a good chance, the team will win most of the time. Over or underperforming xG absolutely has meaning in terms of ability. We had the biggest margin in terms of xG against in Europe in 2017/18. We conceded an xG against of 43.54 according to understat, but actually conceded 28 goals, largely thanks to de Gea. How was that not a direct correlation to his ability and form then?

Currently 11 teams in the EPL are underperforming xG with only 3 teams in the top half, last year it was 4 teams in the top half underperforming compared to the xG they generated out of the 10 teams that did underperform. In 2017/18 there were 9 teams underperforming, the majority in the bottom half. Good teams regularly outperform their xG, I didn't say that bad or average teams can't do that, too.

We are currently on pace for an xG figure of 63.59 in the league and if we keep our poor finishing up, then we are on pace for 50.67 goals, which would be a margin of 12.92. Nice under Vieira underperformed that same measure by 13.45 last season, so it's absolutely possible to underperform like that over a whole season. They finished 7th despite massively outperforming their xG against thanks to Walter Benitez.
Goals against is trickier to judge and more to do with your own goalkeepers ability. The reason why people put value in xG is that most players over a long enough period of time perform pretty much close to their xG, be it Aguero, Lewandowski, Ronaldo, whoever. There are like 10-15% variances with some players like Messi and Martial, but it's not that massive and makes it a valuable marker. So assuming average finishing, then if you continuously create better chances then the opposition, that'll pay off and you'll get a hot run of finishing to take advantage of that. Of course finishing matters, it's what ultimately decides the results. xG is used to judge overall chance creation from a team, and it makes sense. Usually coaches develop systems to try to frequently create chances, while limit opposing chances. They don't design systems to create just 1 or 2 big chances and then tell their players they're shite if they don't take them. So I would say it's a good side just underperforming in terms of results if they have good xG but it isn't being represented in the real table. Yeah, it can last a full season, but eventually it will tell. Just like in 17/18 we didn't concede that many goals, but our defence actually wasn't very good and once De Gea stopped playing like a god we fell down to a distinctly mid table defence (like our defence probably was that year if De Gea wasn't in god mode).

Also a team being higher in the table compared to another team doesn't necessarily mean they are a better "team". Were we better then Liverpool in 18/19? We had more points, though they reached the CL final playing great stuff. Naturally if a team is on a clinical run of form that would lead to better results, so they'd be higher in the table. They did finish better, and that's the most important thing at the end of the day, but actual goals aren't good predictors for future performances and results. XG is a much better predictor for that, and statistically if a team continually creates good xG but just isn't finishing, eventually it should positively regress. The thing with football is it's always a small sample, so there is so much variability, but xG is the most accurate predictor.

Basically, see this: http://11tegen11.net/2015/01/05/the-best-predictor-for-future-performance-is-expected-goals/
He explains it all. It's not the be all and end all, but generally a good sign of things working. As many managers have always said, a striker continually getting in chances is a good sign even if they've been on a bad finishing streak. You worry when they stop getting chances.
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Also Chelsea scored 6 vs Grimsby from a lower non-penalty xG than we created vs Rochdale


Basically, our xG is currently reflecting that we do not have elite forwards/finishers.
 

settembrini

Full Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
3,283
Basically, our xG is currently reflecting that we do not have elite forwards/finishers.
This is why Martial was the worst injury we could have gotten. He's one of a minority of players who always outperforms their xG and has beaten it every season since we signed him. If he gets fit and back in form then our results will improve significantly.
 

bucky

Full Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
9,572
Goals against is trickier to judge and more to do with your own goalkeepers ability. The reason why people put value in xG is that most players over a long enough period of time perform pretty much close to their xG, be it Aguero, Lewandowski, Ronaldo, whoever. There are like 10-15% variances with some players like Messi and Martial, but it's not that massive and makes it a valuable marker. So assuming average finishing, then if you continuously create better chances then the opposition, that'll pay off and you'll get a hot run of finishing to take advantage of that. Of course finishing matters, it's what ultimately decides the results. xG is used to judge overall chance creation from a team, and it makes sense. Usually coaches develop systems to try to frequently create chances, while limit opposing chances. They don't design systems to create just 1 or 2 big chances and then tell their players they're shite if they don't take them. So I would say it's a good side just underperforming in terms of results if they have good xG but it isn't being represented in the real table. Yeah, it can last a full season, but eventually it will tell. Just like in 17/18 we didn't concede that many goals, but our defence actually wasn't very good and once De Gea stopped playing like a god we fell down to a distinctly mid table defence (like our defence probably was that year if De Gea wasn't in god mode).

Also a team being higher in the table compared to another team doesn't necessarily mean they are a better "team". Were we better then Liverpool in 18/19? We had more points, though they reached the CL final playing great stuff. Naturally if a team is on a clinical run of form that would lead to better results, so they'd be higher in the table. They did finish better, and that's the most important thing at the end of the day, but actual goals aren't good predictors for future performances and results. XG is a much better predictor for that, and statistically if a team continually creates good xG but just isn't finishing, eventually it should positively regress. The thing with football is it's always a small sample, so there is so much variability, but xG is the most accurate predictor.

Basically, see this: http://11tegen11.net/2015/01/05/the-best-predictor-for-future-performance-is-expected-goals/
He explains it all. It's not the be all and end all, but generally a good sign of things working. As many managers have always said, a striker continually getting in chances is a good sign even if they've been on a bad finishing streak. You worry when they stop getting chances.
You don't need to convince me of this sort of stuff, I am on board regarding the value of xG. I also know that's a good indicator of future performances. It's one of the reasons why I think the reaction to Astana was hysterical on the caf and why I continue to keep faith in Ole. He's doing okay despite the squad that he has. So far we have outperformed each opponent in every single game this season, if I'm not mistaken. That's a good sign and I sincerely hope he gets backed in January. The last two games were very bad though, hopefully that doesn't continue.

With that being said I responded to the notion that regression to the means has to happen over the course of one season. Which is just not true. Bad finishing over the entire season is very much so a possibility.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,587
Location
Canada
You don't need to convince me of this sort of stuff, I am on board regarding the value of xG. I also know that's a good indicator of future performances. It's one of the reasons why I think the reaction to Astana was hysterical on the caf and why I continue to keep faith in Ole. He's doing okay despite the squad that he has. So far we have outperformed each opponent in every single game this season, if I'm not mistaken. That's a good sign and I sincerely hope he gets backed in January. The last two games were very bad though, hopefully that doesn't continue.

With that being said I responded to the notion that regression to the means has to happen over the course of one season. Which is just not true. Bad finishing over the entire season is very much so a possibility.
Oh yeah I agree with that. Eventually with a long enough sample it would probably even out, but just taking premier league games in one season you can definitely have it be a thing all year. Even in all competitions... It's never a big enough sample to be able to say it won't last all year, but I think it's safe enough to at least have hope for a turn in results.
 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
10,295
Location
playa del carmen
This is a problem with xG, if Ruud had missed a few like that yesterday, and he did, you can bank on him coming good. xG doesn't factor in how shite Mata is these days and how unlikely Rashford and Lingard are to start scoring again.

Martial coming back upfront will help a lot and if Greenwood can work his way in over the season we might have a chance to convert these.
If lingard and rashford buck the trend over 100s of thousands of data points then fairplay to them
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906
First time we have lost the xG, which doesn’t feel intuitive. Felt like we were more likely to win.

 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
10,295
Location
playa del carmen

Kush

Hyperbolic and will post where they like!!
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,440
Tougher fixtures could well suit us. Need teams to try to come at us, we defend well and will create on the break, especially with our main striker back.
Hopefully you are right but I remember even Klopp was quite pragmatic when he came to OT last year. I think every team knows the blueprint on how to beat us, let us have the ball and rinse us on break. With exception of Lampard's Chelsea I don't really see many teams playing on the front foot. Likes of Newcastle, Norwich and Bournemouth will allow us to keep ball.
 

izec

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
27,164
Location
Lucilinburhuc

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,205
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
We're still 2nd place on xPTS, which is kind of crazy.
Following Understat, we are 4th on expected goals, 1st on expected goals against, and 2nd on expected points, ahead of Liverpool.

For me, looking behind the stats, they confirm what I’ve seen in the games: 1. We’ve been very good defensively most of the time in all of the games. 2. We’ve created some, but not many chances, but more than the opposition in almost every game.
 

John Blund

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,214
As for chances created in open play. We had Lingard as #10 against Arsenal. He had 0, nill, passes to Rashford in that game. Lindelöf had 3 to Rashford. We'd look a whole lot better if we had Maddison or Eriksen in that role. We need to spend in January to fill this role.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,205
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
As for chances created in open play. We had Lingard as #10 against Arsenal. He had 0, nill, passes to Rashford in that game. Lindelöf had 3 to Rashford. We'd look a whole lot better if we had Maddison or Eriksen in that role. We need to spend in January to fill this role.
Some would say that being 4th in the league in expected goals is quite a feat with Lingard, Pereira, Mata and James to provide the opportunities, yes.
 

snowkarl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
340
Following Understat, we are 4th on expected goals, 1st on expected goals against, and 2nd on expected points, ahead of Liverpool.

For me, looking behind the stats, they confirm what I’ve seen in the games: 1. We’ve been very good defensively most of the time in all of the games. 2. We’ve created some, but not many chances, but more than the opposition in almost every game.
The only reason we've had a high xG and xP is thanks to our incredible luck in getting penalties in the first few games.

From open play our xG is ABYSMAL and more accurately reflects our performances and how we are expected to perform going forwards.
 

mav_9me

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
12,400
The only reason we've had a high xG and xP is thanks to our incredible luck in getting penalties in the first few games.

From open play our xG is ABYSMAL and more accurately reflects our performances and how we are expected to perform going forwards.
Just wanted to emphasize.
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
3,299
The only reason we've had a high xG and xP is thanks to our incredible luck in getting penalties in the first few games.

From open play our xG is ABYSMAL and more accurately reflects our performances and how we are expected to perform going forwards.
yeah sure..
 

John Blund

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,214
Yah, the introduction of VAR is incredible luck for us. Now they actually give us penalties, because they can withdraw it later if it was wrong. I haven't seen they be using VAR to give penalties not spotted by the ref. Like the handball against Arsenal. Or the foul on Martial against whatever the team it was.
 

snowkarl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
340
If you guys want to remain in denial about it then that is fine. The results speak for themselves and so does xG from open play.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,587
Location
Canada
If you guys want to remain in denial about it then that is fine. The results speak for themselves and so does xG from open play.
Yes our attack isnt amazing but it's also been hurt by the main guys getting injuries. Our xPts is high though because of our defence actually being good right now with Maguire and Wan Bissaka.
There are positives, and there are reasonable explanations for other points. Still not enough, but not awful.
 

snowkarl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
340
Yes our attack isnt amazing but it's also been hurt by the main guys getting injuries. Our xPts is high though because of our defence actually being good right now with Maguire and Wan Bissaka.
There are positives, and there are reasonable explanations for other points. Still not enough, but not awful.
Seriously mate, how can you say it's not awful? Literally the worst start we've had in 30 years, 18th in the xG from open play, almost got kicked out of the cup by Rochdale and we look like absolute shit and bound to sack another manager (legend on top of it) before the season's up.

What is there to be positive about?

Sure the defence looks 'ok' but let's be honest, we never look anywhere close to safe from conceding which is why everyone keeps crying about Lindelöf and Young etc.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,205
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
The only reason we've had a high xG and xP is thanks to our incredible luck in getting penalties in the first few games.

From open play our xG is ABYSMAL and more accurately reflects our performances and how we are expected to perform going forwards.
I think you are outright wrong in saying penalties are the only reason we have a high xG and xP, seeing as if you exclude penalties, we still have a clear positive xG to xGa margin.

You are also wrong in reducing penalties to a question of luck, as there is a connection between creating dangerous situations in the box and penalties conceded. The penalties we were given were correct, and you could also argue we could have had a couple more. We have quick attackers, so it’s one way we could expect to create chances.

Open play is just a part of the game, both looking back and looking forward. Many goals come from different kind of set pieces.
 

LInkash

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
8,207
I'm going to pretend the xPTS tables is the real table, third place, woo!
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906
I'll cheer everyone up by sharing we're still fourth on xG, top on xGA and third on xPts.
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
13,891
I'll cheer everyone up by sharing we're still fourth on xG, top on xGA and third on xPts.
Which is silly to look at since we have not been good. We have finally started to score more goals, but we still do not create that much. We can defend well in spells, but always gives away goals when we need to keep other teams out.
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,268
The manager is incompetent.
Nothing more, nothing less. Why is it difficult to comprehend?
is this the new Manchester united? play 17 and 18 years old kids and hovering between 9-15th position and call it the united way?
This legacy that Sir Alex worked hard to change and make us the biggest club in the league is being destroyed by a novice manager from Norway and an incompetent Ed fecking Woodward.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
The manager is incompetent.
Nothing more, nothing less. Why is it difficult to comprehend?
is this the new Manchester united? play 17 and 18 years old kids and hovering between 9-15th position and call it the united way?
This legacy that Sir Alex worked hard to change and make us the biggest club in the league is being destroyed by a novice manager from Norway and an incompetent Ed fecking Woodward.
The legacy/culture of the club left with the coaches let go under Moyes and the players sold/released.
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906

Grealish magic and shite finishing makes Ole a sad boy. This, I don’t think, doesn’t even give xG from “Rashford’s goal” as the move ended in a Heaton OG. We should have fecking won this.
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906

Really good defensive display considering United were leading for about 81 of the 97 minutes
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906

Watford lucky, but United were just United. Difficult to call that unlucky now.
 

Di Maria's angel

Captain of Moanchester United
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
14,762
Location
London
They were lucky in that DDG let in a simple catch and AWB gave away a daft penalty. This is on our players though.
No. They weren't. We were shit and they weren't. xG is the dumbest shit ever created.

Let's remove all the penalties given to us as well, no? All daft, aren't they?
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906
No. They weren't. We were shit and they weren't. xG is the dumbest shit ever created.

Let's remove all the penalties given to us as well, no? All daft, aren't they?
Watford’s performance didn’t really merit two goals, but variance happens. Performances like that will see Watford relegated.