horsechoker
The Caf's Roy Keane.
I imagine the xG on Fred's goal was actually quite low though, it was probably the hardest opportunity we made to score.isn't 2.16 a bit low? We could've scored 5 or 6 today.
I imagine the xG on Fred's goal was actually quite low though, it was probably the hardest opportunity we made to score.isn't 2.16 a bit low? We could've scored 5 or 6 today.
Ronaldo and Elanga had two very good chances.isn't 2.16 a bit low? We could've scored 5 or 6 today.
I also would have thought the difference would be larger and that we accumulated more.isn't 2.16 a bit low? We could've scored 5 or 6 today.
0.06 according to fotmob.I imagine the xG on Fred's goal was actually quite low though, it was probably the hardest opportunity we made to score.
Ronaldo's was 0.71 and Elanga's miss was 0.26.Ronaldo and Elanga had two very good chances.
It's really just a numberification of saying things like "Misslington played really well but their players couldn't find the empty net" or "Clinical Town FC didn't do shit all game but Good Player saved them with his unlikely finish".What’s does xG even mean?
You guys are on a different level to me.
I can just imagine talking to old mates about xG, wouldn’t go down well!
Right ok, I sort of understand.It's really just a numberification of saying things like "Misslington played really well but their players couldn't find the empty net" or "Clinical Town FC didn't do shit all game but Good Player saved them with his unlikely finish".
It's saying that on average United would score 2.16 goals based on the chances they've created. It's an early attempt to quantify football with numbers but is very noisy and shouldn't be relied upon itself. But it's somewhat helpful to identify a run of good luck by consistently outperforming the xG and vice versa.Right ok, I sort of understand.
Thank you anyway for the explanation, I appreciate that.
Thank you for the further explanation, I sort of understand it and can understand it being useful for stats etc.It's saying that on average United would score 2.16 goals based on the chances they've created. It's an early attempt to quantify football with numbers but is very noisy and shouldn't be relied upon itself. But it's somewhat helpful to identify a run of good luck by consistently outperforming the xG and vice versa.
it does feel low, Ronaldo's chance must have been at least 0.7 you'd thinkisn't 2.16 a bit low? We could've scored 5 or 6 today.
What was Elanga’s goal?I also would have thought the difference would be larger and that we accumulated more.
0.06 according to fotmob.
Ronaldo's was 0.71 and Elanga's miss was 0.26.
0.25.What was Elanga’s goal?
Drunk?SACK rangnick now.
Why hasn't he coached our forwards to put away open goals ? Get them to shoot in open goals in training.
Even the resident caftard can coach better than rangnick, he's not fit to lace ole shoes.
/s
It felt like a 0-0 draw against Burnley at Old Trafford back in 2016/17, just without goalkeeper making crazy saves like Heaton did back then.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sarcasm.Drunk?
That's a good question. We had some great chances in first 20 minutes. Dominated other 70 as well but didn't create big opportunities.I wonder what the xG was from 20 minutes onwards. It felt like the quality of chances really got worse and worse throughout the match.
There's no doubt that we have improved, clear to see.Post GW12 when Ole got fired:
Now:
Nothing you would wouldn't expect but backs up the point that underlying performances have certainly improved along with results.
From a very low bar, it has to be said.There's no doubt that we have improved, clear to see.
Oh yes, I'm in no way saying it's good enough just that we aren't in free fall anymore.From a very low bar, it has to be said.
xG is about the statistical "average" player. Outperforming your xG doesn't necessarily mean you have just luck (though that can certainly be the case too), it can just as easily mean that you have simply above average quality which is why many top teams outperform their xG.It's saying that on average United would score 2.16 goals based on the chances they've created. It's an early attempt to quantify football with numbers but is very noisy and shouldn't be relied upon itself. But it's somewhat helpful to identify a run of good luck by consistently outperforming the xG and vice versa.
Yet over time, the best strikers don't really outperform their xGs by more than about 10%. Look at the chart posted by bosnian_red a few pages back I think it was.xG is about the statistical "average" player. Outperforming your xG doesn't necessarily mean you have just luck (though that can certainly be the case too), it can just as easily mean that you have simply above average quality which is why many top teams outperform their xG.
I wonder what the xG was from 20 minutes onwards. It felt like the quality of chances really got worse and worse throughout the match.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We were poor. Anyone who thinks xG is useful, would probably told you as much. Weird post.Notice how the xG apologists didn't bump this thread after the Atletico game. Atletico, the only half decent team we've faced in 2.5 months under Ralf. Guess it doesn't fit a certain agenda.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The last graph shows it all. Just a shame Ole's squad building was utter crap and we are left with no proper strikers. Otherwise we'd have made it count much more often
To be fair, he couldn't predict, what was going to happen with Rashford and Greenwood, we lost a lot of goals with Rashford completely losing his confidence and ability, and Greenwood doing what he did. On top of that he wanted to sign Haaland. Instead he got Ronaldo and we had to beg Cavani to stay. Not that he was great recruitment wise, but I don't think he's solely to blame for what has went wrong this season.The last graph shows it all. Just a shame Ole's squad building was utter crap and we are left with no proper strikers. Otherwise we'd have made it count much more often
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date