Match of the Day - 2018/19
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
- Status
xG is incredibly simplistic, that's why it's come up with such bad numbers. It only takes into account actual shots you have, so them scoring an own goal is instantly ignored, as is us generally trying to walk the ball into the net, as we didn't end up having a shot, or no one gets on the end of a ball rolled across the 6 yard box. It also ignores how well you actually did, so Sane hitting the post is just seen as a shot from quite far away so not a very good chance.
It's just the latest shit attempt to crowbar bullshit stats into football
D
D
Deleted member 81382
Guest
A mixed night for Danny Murphy bingo. It took him less than a minute before he said "get in their faces." However, I was taken aback by the absence of his go to phrase "let him know you're there" in tonight's show.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,467
GeorgeHeslop'sTackle.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2010
- Messages
- 3,986
Not according to Pep, in his after match press conference, we ain't ;-)
CharliesRightPeg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 589
Have a look at stats bomb who have a really good website explaining all this and you'll see that there is more that goes into it than that.
Also don' forget that a pen is something like .75 xg so from all their other shots they had an xg of 1.
City scored multiple goals with low xg because of the angle or players in the way, and that sane shot against the post, most of the time that shot doesn' go in because of the range, players in the way, keeper saving etc
Not all chances are as good as people make them out to be and just because this shot went in, doesn't mean it's happening every time.
If you look, city score a lot of goals from channel cut backs, these shots from in and around the penalty box have the highest xg in the game and it' why we try to create the channel overloads
Imo Murphy realized just after opening his mouth that he was shoving Hughes under the bus so he took up another few minutes to shove the players under the bus. And then to hide his criticism of Hughes’ tactics further when he had the opportunity he again threw the players under the bus.
If any of them could be bothered I bet they’d say that it was Hughes who said dont press and they knew damn well that his tactics were childish.
If any of them could be bothered I bet they’d say that it was Hughes who said dont press and they knew damn well that his tactics were childish.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
Well that was garbage. Imagine Salah puts in the performance Sterling did today! No way that analysis is the same. And we wonder why we don’t feature in end of season awards.
The offside rule change back in 05 is one of the primary reasons as to why smaller footballers have been allowed to flourish in recent years. It forced the pitch to open up as offside traps became too risky, which in turn effectively made the playing area larger, which in turn meant there was more space for players. This made the games less attritional, so more smaller players than previously could thrive all of a sudden. It's a large part of why 4-4-2 started to die out in favour of 4-3-3, because now the pitch is more spread out there's a greater need for midfield presence. So Gullit wasn't speaking nonsense as far as I feel.
With regards to xG, they wouldn't be including it in their stats if they hadn't done their research. Say what you want but there's a reason it's an in demand stat. It's not totally accurate but it's been shown to be the closest thing to accurately modelling 'fair' results since attacking-third turnovers. It has limitations, particularly in a game to game basis, but it's been shown over longer periods to be surprisingly accurate.
In the game today it was clear Southampton would have a higher xG than most have had against us. The penalty, the Long shot near the end, and the shot immediately after the Ederson spill and the large amount of half-chances would have cause it to add up. According to understat the only two teams to have achieved an xG of at least 1 against us were Southampton and Wolves. The next highest is Huddersfield with 0.66 which is indicative of our constant defensive dominance that just wasn't on show against Southampton.
With regards to xG, they wouldn't be including it in their stats if they hadn't done their research. Say what you want but there's a reason it's an in demand stat. It's not totally accurate but it's been shown to be the closest thing to accurately modelling 'fair' results since attacking-third turnovers. It has limitations, particularly in a game to game basis, but it's been shown over longer periods to be surprisingly accurate.
In the game today it was clear Southampton would have a higher xG than most have had against us. The penalty, the Long shot near the end, and the shot immediately after the Ederson spill and the large amount of half-chances would have cause it to add up. According to understat the only two teams to have achieved an xG of at least 1 against us were Southampton and Wolves. The next highest is Huddersfield with 0.66 which is indicative of our constant defensive dominance that just wasn't on show against Southampton.
It's still a load of absolute shite. It still completely ignores everything except actual shots and it still completely ignores the actual ability of the player shooting. To xG, Kevin De Bruyne having a clear shot from 25 yards is no better a chance than Jesus Navas having the same shot. It also thinks if you get played clear through on goal but the keeper tackles you as you round him, it wasn't even a chance as you didn't shoot, same for last ditch sliding tackles or interceptions that prevent tap ins.
It is hideously oversimplified
- Status