That stat is partly why I can't stand other footballing communities like "r/soccer". It's treated like the holy grail of football stats, but like most stats it lacks any context. We had 5 very good goal scoring opportunities yesterday yet our xG is only 0.86? Absolute nonsense.
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer | W15 D2 L4
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I am feeling positive today, and I am starting to wonder what Ole is capable of, given time and financial backing. How much better can this squad become in his tenure? We are seeing the most of the squad looking reinvigorated under him, after just a little time, so how could it look, say, in 2021? Guardiola took a little time to create his azur monster, and without any further comparisons, I wonder what Ole potentially could create here. Could he take United to another level?
We have conceded just 1 goal against Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. Compare that to 10 we conceded against them in the first half of the season and if that doesn't convince you, nothing will.
At the end of the season:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A perfect example of how stats can be conjured to any argument if you look hard enough.
Anyone with a pair of functioning eyes could see how we dealt with Palace and the injuries we had in a controlled and professional manner, as well as the overall performance during the game where we didn't look under much threat, if at all, from Palace's attackers.
I was at the game, and there was not a single point of the match where I was nervous. The result was never in doubt, and yet according to xG, we were shaded by Palace's superior performance?
Even if this was the case, a stat like that is totally devoid of the context of 5/6 of our first choice attack and midfield being unavailable.
Ed: Congratulations Ole you finished 3rd and won Fa Cup
Ole: Thank you, so when do I start as permanent manager??
Ed: Permanent manager?? Are you crazy have you see the xG stats you were outperformed by Fulham and Crystal Palace!! You are not getting the job
Another test passed I was fearful for us last night with all those injuries. Yes at times it wasnt pretty but we still won the game and scored 3 goals.
Whatever happens with Ole it makes you wonder what on earth Mourinho was doing- Ole has signed no one so has exactly the same squad yet look at his results. So glad we acted and removed him while we could potentially salvage top 4 and not when it had mathematically gone. However makes you wonder what might have been had we acted in the summer when he was already starting to play up the warning signs were there in pre season couldn't even beat small clubs. But then would we have got Ole.
Whatever happens with Ole it makes you wonder what on earth Mourinho was doing- Ole has signed no one so has exactly the same squad yet look at his results. So glad we acted and removed him while we could potentially salvage top 4 and not when it had mathematically gone. However makes you wonder what might have been had we acted in the summer when he was already starting to play up the warning signs were there in pre season couldn't even beat small clubs. But then would we have got Ole.
I guess it is luck that we have had very few goals scored on us in comparison to other teams since OGS became manager then, right?
xG is a load of toss. It's a dumb, dumb stat and I like stats. 
At the end of the season:
Ed: Congratulations Ole you finished 3rd and won Fa Cup
Ole: Thank you, so when do I start as permanent manager??
Ed: Permanent manager?? Are you crazy have you see the xG stats you were outperformed by Fulham and Crystal Palace!! You are not getting the job
Depends what you're looking at.
Exactly. I am also big fan of stats and like their use in sports but xG is a pile of shit. How the feck can anybody who watched yesterday's match would agree that Palace had better xG?xG is a load of toss. It's a dumb, dumb stat and I like stats.
Exactly, it's fecking bizarre. The only genuine chance Palace had was that free header directly after our opener. Can't actually think (beside their goal) of a real decent chance and I mean a chance that should have resulted in either a very good save by De Gea or an actual goal. Meanwhile we scored 3 goals. We even had double the shots on target ffs!
On this site we had 1.51, which seems closer to the game.
XG can be an alright companion piece of stats, but if you want a clear picture you need to, you know, actually watch the cocking match.
It favours high pressing teams massively and any potential counterattacks that don't end up in shots are considered non existent. The whole thing kind of ignores the fact that it's easier to score if there's no one in front of you.
It favours high pressing teams massively and any potential counterattacks that don't end up in shots are considered non existent. The whole thing kind of ignores the fact that it's easier to score if there's no one in front of you.
Last edited:
How?
Liverpool had more possession on Sunday and might even had bigger fekin xG but anyone who watched the match could have told you they weren't even remotely dangerous.
So according to xG:
Wards goal = 0.58
McCather shot = 0.51
Lukakus 2nd goal = 0.50
Lukaku shot = 0.29
Schlupp header = 0.28
Pogba header = 0.13
Paul Pogba shot = 0.09
Youngs goal = 0.09
Lukakus 1st goal = 0.08
Pogba Freekick = 0.08
Milivojevic Freekick = 0.05
Everything else below that.
*shrugs*
Wards goal = 0.58
McCather shot = 0.51
Lukakus 2nd goal = 0.50
Lukaku shot = 0.29
Schlupp header = 0.28
Pogba header = 0.13
Paul Pogba shot = 0.09
Youngs goal = 0.09
Lukakus 1st goal = 0.08
Pogba Freekick = 0.08
Milivojevic Freekick = 0.05
Everything else below that.
*shrugs*
0.48 for us, 0.38 for them. Seems right.
So can someone tell me why Ward's goal has an xG of 0.58 but Lukaku's missed chance had 0.29? Does the fact that they scored come into it? Cos Lukaku's chance seemed way easier than Ward's to me.
Regarding why high pressing teams would have a higher xG, its because they're gonna win the ball higher up and usually the opposition only has a couple of defenders behind the ball. But those opportunities also come in a flash and are easy to miss since everything happens in a split second. While in a chance from deeper - for example Lukaku's first goal against CP - he's surrounded by defenders. So even if he has a lot more time to set himself and use the defenders to put it out of reach of the GK its considered a harder chance in xG terms.
This is why xG is not a good indicator of how many goals a team should have scored at all. Its a better indicator of what side created more clear cut chances. And in that regard it is no more useful a stat than possession or shots on target.
Regarding why high pressing teams would have a higher xG, its because they're gonna win the ball higher up and usually the opposition only has a couple of defenders behind the ball. But those opportunities also come in a flash and are easy to miss since everything happens in a split second. While in a chance from deeper - for example Lukaku's first goal against CP - he's surrounded by defenders. So even if he has a lot more time to set himself and use the defenders to put it out of reach of the GK its considered a harder chance in xG terms.
This is why xG is not a good indicator of how many goals a team should have scored at all. Its a better indicator of what side created more clear cut chances. And in that regard it is no more useful a stat than possession or shots on target.
Last edited:
You're going to have a higher number of shots in more valuable positions if most of the game plays out in the opponents half.
Yeah, for that Schlupp chance, we too had two missed chances by Lukaku and Pogba. Only other chance of them I remember is half chance of Townsend early on. It was too difficult a angle for him to keep on target anyway and he most likely won't have beaten De Gea at near post even if he somehow got on target. xG of 0.05 at max imoExactly, it's fecking bizarre. The only genuine chance Palace had was that free header directly after our opener. Can't actually think (beside their goal) of a real decent chance and I mean a chance that should have resulted in either a very good save by De Gea or an actual goal. Meanwhile we scored 3 goals. We even had double the shots on target ffs!
Edit: Just saw your detailed xG post. I was generous giving 0.05 to Townsend
You make good points. It's more a question for me (at the most simplistic level) of counter-attack versus high press as an either/or, which you may find too reductionist. But more it's a question of how good Ole will be at coming up with a fresh style as needed, and spotting the players to carry it out.
Just by high pressing ? No, not really.
But we don't play a counter attacking style under Ole. There's a difference between "having a good counter attack" and "playing a counter attacking style". We play a very energetic high press style not dissimilar to Klopp with the first line of press closing the passing lanes and the rest covering their man from behind. At least to start the games. And then when we get the lead we ease off and pick teams off on the counter.
I think thats a rather more sophisticated way of playing than playing the same way for the whole 90 minutes.
You generally will, if you're successful at it.
xG is absolutely meaningless when it comes to analysing a single chance. The stats they use to calculate xG don't take every factor into account, just a few of the major ones. Two shots with the same "0.5 xG" will have their own individual circumstances that determine the actual difficulty of the chance. One could be a 20% chance, one an 80% chance. The xG is just an average of 1000s of roughly similar looking chances.
What a twatTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A perfect example of how stats can be conjured to any argument if you look hard enough.
Anyone with a pair of functioning eyes could see how we dealt with Palace and the injuries we had in a controlled and professional manner, as well as the overall performance during the game where we didn't look under much threat, if at all, from Palace's attackers.
I was at the game, and there was not a single point of the match where I was nervous. The result was never in doubt, and yet according to xG, we were shaded by Palace's superior performance?
Even if this was the case, a stat like that is totally devoid of the context of 5/6 of our first choice attack and midfield being unavailable.
Yeah Ole should turn down his dream job because of some shite stats on the internet.
Not really sure, how people get so defensive when it comes to this. Yes, we have been better, but it's worth pointing out that we conceded a fair amount of chances against certain teams. The interpretation of that 11tegen11 guy is just stupid and I still don't understand how they come up with a different xG figure than understat.com. My interpretation would be, having seen the games, that for one, we simply have the better players, hence the better finishing (which Ole said he would be working on with the players). Two, teams like Leicester, Fulham and Crystal Palace are where they are in the league for a reason and that their players simply aren't as good as ours in terms of finishing and three, that we have the best goalkeeper in the league, so even if we give away good goalscoring opportunities, we can rely on de Gea, while other teams simply don't have that good of a goalkeeper.
According to understat, we had a better xG against Cardiff, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Brighton, Burnley and Liverpool, which all seem right to me. While we were marginally worse against Leicester, Fulham and Crystal Palace, which again doesn't seem to be completely wrong. The only game where we were worse by quite a bit was against Tottenham, which again fits with what happened in the game.
According to understat, we had a better xG against Cardiff, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Brighton, Burnley and Liverpool, which all seem right to me. While we were marginally worse against Leicester, Fulham and Crystal Palace, which again doesn't seem to be completely wrong. The only game where we were worse by quite a bit was against Tottenham, which again fits with what happened in the game.
What that account fails to take into account is that not everyone is a freaking coward like whoever wrote that. Imagine turning down the chance to manage United and realise a life's dream because you'd rather safeguard some meaningless record to keep your "reputation" in tact. If anything, that's Mourinho-esque.
At the risk of sounding like a boomer here, XG is pseudo-intellectual hipster bullshit; one of the worst things about the modern game.
Well I said it was crude. I don't think we can call it a high press though. Not with De Gea playing on his line.
What a twat
Yeah Ole should turn down his dream job because of some shite stats on the internet.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
These were the words my statistics prof. quoted to begin his semester. Not many statisticians know the limits of their own stupidity.
Again you're assuming a high press means our defenders should be pressing their forwards at the half way line so the GK has to sweep up balls over the top. But we don't play a high pressing game through the whole game and everywhere on the pitch like say Spurs. We press when their defenders are trying to play out from the back but once that is bypassed we drop deeper and look to counter. This to me is a much more sophisticated way of going about it than having to rely on your keeper to sweep up behind your defense all the time.
BTW I'm sure De Gea will start (and has started to some extent already) coming out to sweep more and more if the opposition gets behind very early. He used to do this very well under Van Gaal, but Mourinho didn't ask him to do that.
How is Lukaku's shot only 0.29 when it was 5 yards from goal and he only had GK to beat? As expected these are just useless without watching game.
Even Stats also show that we are very good under Ole.What a twat
Yeah Ole should turn down his dream job because of some shite stats on the internet.
Since Ole took over xG, xGA, xP
1 Manchester City 26.27, 8.25, 25.14
2 Liverpool 22.87, 8.05, 24.01
3 Manchester United 22.43, 13.34, 20.67
4 Burnley 18.68, 13.05, 19.30
5 Tottenham 17.22, 11.75, 18.53
6 Arsenal 19.92, 15.40, 18.30
I would be so interested in seeing the xG for Fergies time and I have a feeling it would not be that great a lot of the time. The reasons we won so many titles for twenty years wasn't because we dominated games and converted loads of easy chances with high xG. We won titles because we always seemed to find a way to win, even when we weren't playing particularly well, say when we had an injury crisis and were playing a midfield of O'Shea and Park, or with a Ronaldo pot shot from 30 yards.
There is a big big swing in results, performance, running stats, sprinting stats etc etc. Why? Because the management team, including Phelan, Carrick, McKenna. And OGS, have put square pegs in square holes, tactics are now being used in games by them all, yesterday against Palace, was a tough game even with full squad, but to get result with 9 injuries was excellent.
Playing Dalot in front of Young shows how much this team of coaches looks at every single game. Also knowing the players capability. It's a head ache good one for board on what to do ..
Playing Dalot in front of Young shows how much this team of coaches looks at every single game. Also knowing the players capability. It's a head ache good one for board on what to do ..
I have no idea. I'd love to know how they construct these values.
The chance at 1:48 is the one Roonster is referring too and that was apparently only worth 0.29? But the Townsend shot at 2:09 is worth 0.51.. *scratches chin*
Lukaku has the entire goal to aim at and is completely unmarked. While Townsend has a pretty tight angle and also unmarked.
Seems like you can be completely unmarked in the box with the entire goal to aim at but if you're not in the 6 yard box it won't give you a high score. They give way too much important to distance to goal without thinking about angle of shot and amount of goal they can aim at.
Last edited:
Because xG is an average that doesn't take into account, who is taking the shot. There's a difference between Benteke having a 0.29 chance on the xG model and Ronaldo in that same situation. But since the model takes into account both players and a lot of other players, you'll end up with an average for that particular chance that is lower than what it would be, if Ronaldo would be taking all the shots in that situation.
I am not sure, if what I am about to say is true, but I think it's because it actually isn't that easy of a chance for the average professional. It's a volley from a corner, which on average quite a lot of players seem to miss, while Townsend is a lot closer to goal and he's set up by a simple pass. On average more goals are scored from that position. Whether the players are relatively unmarked is also not relevant to the model.
The statistics that matterTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A perfect example of how stats can be conjured to any argument if you look hard enough.
Anyone with a pair of functioning eyes could see how we dealt with Palace and the injuries we had in a controlled and professional manner, as well as the overall performance during the game where we didn't look under much threat, if at all, from Palace's attackers.
I was at the game, and there was not a single point of the match where I was nervous. The result was never in doubt, and yet according to xG, we were shaded by Palace's superior performance?
Even if this was the case, a stat like that is totally devoid of the context of 5/6 of our first choice attack and midfield being unavailable.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maybe, but surely Lukaku isn't that much further out than Townsend? He's practically volleyed the ball on the 6 yard line in the center of the box. While Townsend is on the left perhaps 2 yards closer to the byline but at a much tighter angle. Given how tight the angle is and how little Townsend has to aim at i'd have said that's actually a pretty tricky shot compared to Lukakus unmarked volley. If marking isn't taken into consideration then the whole stat is pretty much useless as player pressure is an important part of shot difficulty.