If one team has more of the ball, has more chances in total, show more attacking endeavour but make some huge feck ups at the back that cost them do they deserve to win? If not then what result do they deserve?
No, but who is claiming that? It’s just that the team that is gifted those chances didn’t do anything to have deserved them. They haven’t earned it, or played well to get it, they simply got away with it. Or maybe you prefer gifted it, got lucky, fluked it. Whatever terminology you prefer, use that. They happened to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from a United implosion.
That happens a shit load in football, and the best team often doesn’t win. There’s no rhyme no reason to it sometimes; it’s just what happens when 22 human beings play a football match. If that wasn’t the case, I doubt many of us would be watching.
My specific issue is of using an even xG score to argue that the beneficiary of those mistakes somehow deserved to get them and that the result was the one that should have happened based on both teams performances. As if it makes their performance comparable to the other teams or, somehow, indicates that they played with an attacking verve that went unrewarded until some mistakes came along to balance things out.
It’s a complete mis-understanding of football. Everton can head back to Merseyside cock-a-hoop because they played poorly and were given 3 goals. We’ll head back home knowing we chucked away 3 points. Everyone watching that game knows that both those things are true, so there’s no need to try and argue that at some deep philosophical level it isn’t because the xG balanced out.