Impressive overreaction there, kudos
xG and finishing under ETH
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Why?
"Understand football less", says football forum poster.
Ignorance is bliss.
Sack Benni sell rashford
What is that you don't understand about xG? I will explain in simple terms.
What exactly is your problem? Do you think I monitor or come across every xG stat in the world? If you saw a stat like that, what stopped you from bumping this thread with it?
The thread has been quiet for weeks despite Everton having a better xG than us and Newcastle battering us in the previous two games. I bumped the thread with a positive stat. Yet you seem to have an issue with that.
I'll have to put you on ignore if you continue with these constant and petty wum attempts because I don't want to be banned getting riled up by utter garbage posts like these ones.
Why people think it is an objective statistic like fouls conceded or offsides, rather than a predictive model that makes educated guesses based on a particular set of assumptions.
The wummer wum'd.Done. Feels great.
I don't know you personally so won't comment but the only people I've seen share the same opinion in-person are also the same people who don't understand football.
Actually those words were probably more considerate than what most of us are thinking.
Understat have shot maps (PL games only) for each player with the option to show a single season, so you can compare where they were shooting from last season to this season. The size of the circle indicates the expected goal value of the attempt and the colour tells you whether it was off-target, saved, blocked, hit woodwork or goal.
From this, I suspect that a Garnacho/Rashford Hojlund Antony attack, with McTominay looking to get in the box, will create big chances for Hojlund and McTominay, while Garnacho/Rashford/Antony will be relying on super finishes and shot volume from low percentage zones. Many of those chances will be created by Fernandes.
Last season Rashford scored 10 PL goals from about 16 shots/headers taken from a central position directly in front of the goal, within a range of 10 yards. This season he has taken 3 shots from that zone, failing to score. If that rate continued and he started most PL games, you'd be looking at about 8 attempts during the season, though whether he played wide or as the central striker, could make a significant difference.
Hojlund 6 shots from central position directly in front of goal, within a range of 10 yards. McTominay 5 attempts from this zone (boosted by Chelsea match). Both have 300 fewer PL mins than Rashford. If Ten Hag persists with them as regular starters, then 15+ attempts from this zone over the course of a season seems realistic.
Garnacho's shots, both this season and last season, came from an angle or further than 10 yards. There is one shot that might just be within the zone I'm focusing on. Antony had 1 goal from 3 attempts in this zone last season, just 1 attempt this season; he takes a lot of low percentage shots from near the edge of the area and from an angle inside the area.
Of course it is perfectly possible to score goals from further out and from an angle but those will typically be super finishes or errors from the keeper. Occasionally an attempt from further out will be a big chance, such as a player through on goal.
From this, I suspect that a Garnacho/Rashford Hojlund Antony attack, with McTominay looking to get in the box, will create big chances for Hojlund and McTominay, while Garnacho/Rashford/Antony will be relying on super finishes and shot volume from low percentage zones. Many of those chances will be created by Fernandes.
Last season Rashford scored 10 PL goals from about 16 shots/headers taken from a central position directly in front of the goal, within a range of 10 yards. This season he has taken 3 shots from that zone, failing to score. If that rate continued and he started most PL games, you'd be looking at about 8 attempts during the season, though whether he played wide or as the central striker, could make a significant difference.
Hojlund 6 shots from central position directly in front of goal, within a range of 10 yards. McTominay 5 attempts from this zone (boosted by Chelsea match). Both have 300 fewer PL mins than Rashford. If Ten Hag persists with them as regular starters, then 15+ attempts from this zone over the course of a season seems realistic.
Garnacho's shots, both this season and last season, came from an angle or further than 10 yards. There is one shot that might just be within the zone I'm focusing on. Antony had 1 goal from 3 attempts in this zone last season, just 1 attempt this season; he takes a lot of low percentage shots from near the edge of the area and from an angle inside the area.
Of course it is perfectly possible to score goals from further out and from an angle but those will typically be super finishes or errors from the keeper. Occasionally an attempt from further out will be a big chance, such as a player through on goal.
Last edited:
xG is complete nonsense.
Why do you say that?
Because it's not a statistic. It's made up nonsense.
Valuable input.
It's a statistic and it is made up, but most statistics are when doing analysis tbh.
It's clearly not very accurate, but it does give an idea about the chances made.
People can look back at a game and say, " if we would have taken our chances there the result would be different" but cant wrap their heads around a stat that measures it.
If you think statistics can't/shouldn't be "made up" in the way xG is then you're in for a shock if you ever study statistics.
How are people still arguing about xG? It's not perfect, but there are two incredibly useful things you can infer from it:
1. If you average significantly higher xG than your opponents, over time, you will finish towards the top of the league
2. If an individual player significantly under or over performs their xG (primarily striker/keeper) over time, that player is the variable. Similarly, if a random player suddenly outperforms their xG for 3 months but never has for 5 years, you should trust the longer term view.
1. If you average significantly higher xG than your opponents, over time, you will finish towards the top of the league
2. If an individual player significantly under or over performs their xG (primarily striker/keeper) over time, that player is the variable. Similarly, if a random player suddenly outperforms their xG for 3 months but never has for 5 years, you should trust the longer term view.
It doesn't measure chances, it measures the quality 8f of the shots taken.
Football statistics is pretty objective though, unlike x stats that are subjective.
Corner is corner, shot on target and off target is clearly defined, yellow cards, red cards, penalty taken, passes attempted, etc.
I agree. You don't need xG to see what you see when teams play.
Also, while I understand xG and how it works it doesn't take any account for weather, if games are in the evening or at lunchtime, home/away, crowd and so on. Things that can be as important as some historical informations about shots. That I don't even know if it is correct.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
At home against a team with nothing to play for. Pathetic.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We cheated xG for the first half of the season so far; couldn’t keep doing it. Shit performances now getting what they deserve.
We went into this weekend 12th in terms of xG difference, which fully aligns with the level of performances I've watched us put in this season. Ain't no solace to be found in the stats.
Maybe I drank too much, and Villa's openness played tricks with my mind but it didn't feel like this kind of game to me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
xG is a very deceiving stat, especially with all those offsides.
Villa had good chances outside the goals scored. It's not a performance to get that excited about.
It can be really useful, but it has a couple of huge limitations - firstly, it's only based on goal attempts made, so a player stood in front of an open goal is 0 xG until he takes a shot, and secondly it includes any chances that are ruled out at the time but allows those that wouldn't have counted if they aren't actively ruled out (e.g. a clearly offside chance that's missed).
The issue isn't with xG by itself, it's a very useful stat, the issue is with people who use it as the only stat to explain how a match went or how a team is playing, a great example being Sky Sports who seem to have just discovered it, and will sum up an entire match based on the accumulated xG of each team.
Yes. The disallowed goal doesn’t contribute to xG I believe, but it was only a fraction offside (was it offside? Never saw the lines).
The same for the other 1v1 chances that were offside.
It is, the manner in which we overcame two dumb conceded goals and ripped Villa’s high line to shreds is thrilling. Enjoy the result and up to
the next one.
It is to be excited, the attacking play was very good. We scored 3 goals after 7 hours of not being able to score a single one. We scored another one that was a marginal offside.
On the other hand, Villa could have easily scored 4 goals (Evans block and Onana’s great save), so we are extremely vulnerable at the back. Despite Villa’s suicidal high-line they could have easily won, as xG shows.
The question is if we will be able to build from this, essentially continue this good attacking play and improve in defense, or will we go back to shit again. If I was a betting man, I would bet on the later.
Single game xG misses a lot of things. They did have a few clear chances though so that's fair. Our chances often ended in bad final ball or not the best shot selection, or offside so that's not represented in the numbers.
So did we. And, unlike Villa, none of our goals/chances were gifted to us by horrendous defending.
This is why I hate stats and you can't judge a game by stats. We absolutely dominated them for 90 mins and yet, I fecking see that.
Crap !
Disallowed goals and offside chances don't count, and we were caught 9 times last night.
There's a reason for that though. Being caught offside means your attack is dead.