Not sure what the qualifications are but played all my life and season ticket holder for 30+ years
I still think it is nonsense. Every attacking move by a team is unique, and so is every defensive set up. A shot from 15 yards out can't have a definitive xG. It will be influenced by how many defenders are in the box, has the shot been taken by a recognised striker or a full back, was it on their stronger or weaker foot and so on and so on. There are so many variables so just to allocate an xG number is meaningless in my opinion (and I am never wrong).It can help you understand that it doesn't happen often and it's a blip or if there are different issues. We're not talking about getting your head around WHY it happens, it's not that sort of 'understand'. It's 'understand' as in 'I didn't watch it, what was the story of the game?' without reading fuck loads of words.
And it's not really goals expressed as decimals, it's the expectation/probability of a goal being scored from each individual chance created depending upon the likelihood, just like a percentage, but written as a decimal.
Shot from the halfway life. Goes in like 1% of the time? So xG for that is 0.01 (1%)
Penalty. Goes in maybe 80% of the time? So xG for that is 0.8 (80%)
Then you add up all the percentages at the end of the game and that's your xG.
If they're your only chances in a game your xG = 0.81
(I made up the percentages but do you get what I mean?)
So,
Big xG and we score loads. We probably battered them or at least created loads of clear chances.
Big xG but we don't score many, meh, at least we're still creating chances, just unlucky, shit happens.
Low xG and we don't score many, oh bollocks, we were nullified to minimal clear cut chances and probably struggled to break their back 11 down. More worrying.
Low xG and we score loads, Jammy bastards :)
It's just a different way of analysing a game.
It's just a sort of numbers shorthand as it gives a slightly bigger picture than just 2 shots, 1 on target (above example) and it's just quicker than listing all the chances, not sure it's an over emphasis just a different way of saying stuff.
No biggy for me.
Jammy but shit.As if being in the easiest group wasn’t enough, you will probably play Slovakia next. Are you Rangers in disguise. Jammy bastards or, heavy envelope deliveries?
I will leave it there. I’ve said too much.
Unlikely. I'm sure Portugal will equalise and Czechs now down to 10 vs TurkeyAs if being in the easiest group wasn’t enough, you will probably play Slovakia next. Are you Rangers in disguise. Jammy bastards or, heavy envelope deliveries?
I will leave it there. I’ve said too much.
What, so you don't think Foden gets in City's 1st 11, but Bellingham does ?I think a big reason for England star players underperforming is that they have better quality players at their home clubs. Kane has Sane and Musiala to feed him, Bellingham has Vinicius, Kroos etc, Foden has Rodri to close out midfield so he can play with freedom, Saka has Odegaard and also Ben White on the overlaps.
Of the England starting XI yesterday only Kane, Bellingham and Foden would be guaranteed starters for Arsenal, and for City probably only Bellingham gets into your 1st XI.