Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
eastmanc said:
Is XG the stupidest stat ever. How can a team score three goals and the other score one and then the team who score one have a better XG. what a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...
xG is bollocks
A penalty, which must be one of largest opportunities to score, isn't counted as a full point
It's calculated by % of all the penalties ever recorded that have been scored
So if that is 4 in 5 (80%) then xG recorded Haalands pen yesterday as 0.8 of a chance
And to think , some people have studied every shot /goal to record these stats for xG

If you put Erling Haaland on a 1v1 with the keeper and Raheem Sterling in the same situation, who would you put your money on scoring!
Surely whoever the chance falls to makes a huge difference in expectation of if a goal is scored or not
 
XG is just another Americanisation of football , Any sport in North America is always judged on stats, it gives the commentators something to talk about and discuss, and make them feel they are giving incisive information it's all bollox. Any genuine football fan watching the City game yesterday could see that City wanted to kill the game early and then rest players, and that's what they did.
Leicester would always have more chances and more of the ball after this point, and this is where this XG bollox comes in because you can always use statistics and percentages to then make a game look more balanced and "closer" A football fan using their eyes and not statistics would see the true game .
 
dickie davies said:
xG is bollocks
A penalty, which must be one of largest opportunities to score, isn't counted as a full point
It's calculated by % of all the penalties ever recorded that have been scored
So if that is 4 in 5 (80%) then xG recorded Haalands pen yesterday as 0.8 of a chance
And to think , some people have studied every shot /goal to record these stats for xG

If you put Erling Haaland on a 1v1 with the keeper and Raheem Sterling in the same situation, who would you put your money on scoring!
Surely whoever the chance falls to makes a huge difference in expectation of if a goal is scored or not
Click to expand...
You've actually managed to outline one of the main benefits of xG

In the Premier League this season:
Haaland 32 goals from 22.8 xG
Sterling 4 goals from 6.14 xG

Haaland is outperforming his xG whereas Sterling isn't. Clearly shows us Haaland is a better finisher than Sterling

Also a penalty being counted as a full point doesn't make sense as that implies all penalties are scored
 
eastmanc said:
Is XG the stupidest stat ever. How can a team score three goals and the other score one and then the team who score one have a better XG. what a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...
Because the chances they had were more likely to be scored by an average player

For instance, the Stones goal would have been very low xG and when Kelechi hit the post that would have been quite high xG

What xG doesn't reflect is that City took their foot off the gas after 3 nil deliberately. All stats are flawed in some way, just need to be used as part of a wider context
 
jackl31 said:
You've actually managed to outline one of the main benefits of xG

In the Premier League this season:
Haaland 32 goals from 22.8 xG
Sterling 4 goals from 6.14 xG

Haaland is outperforming his xG whereas Sterling isn't. Clearly shows us Haaland is a better finisher than Sterling

Also a penalty being counted as a full point doesn't make sense as that implies all penalties are scored
Click to expand...
Or that the goalkeepers faced on those occasions with sterling out performed their expected saves (xS?). It assumes all things are equal and that scoring in minute 1 is the same as minute 90 in a game where the result matters or a meaningless game on a rainy day or a sunny day at 2-0 or 0-7. That's why it's complete codswallop.
 
madloaf said:
Or that the goalkeepers faced on those occasions with sterling out performed their expected saves (xS?). It assumes all things are equal and that scoring in minute 1 is the same as minute 90 in a game where the result matters or a meaningless game on a rainy day or a sunny day at 2-0 or 0-7. That's why it's complete codswallop.
Click to expand...
And that's why it appeals to this generation.
 
jackl31 said:
You've actually managed to outline one of the main benefits of xG

In the Premier League this season:
Haaland 32 goals from 22.8 xG
Sterling 4 goals from 6.14 xG

Haaland is outperforming his xG whereas Sterling isn't. Clearly shows us Haaland is a better finisher than Sterling

Also a penalty being counted as a full point doesn't make sense as that implies all penalties are scored
Click to expand...
xG IMO represents expected goals
I'd expect Haaland to score a penalty, especially when his record for us is 100%
Haaland isn't outperforming his xG at all as he is the deadliest striker on the planet
And we certainly do not need xG to tell us Sterling should be scoring more goals. Even my shitty eyesight can see that miles away
 
jackl31 said:
Because the chances they had were more likely to be scored by an average player

For instance, the Stones goal would have been very low xG and when Kelechi hit the post that would have been quite high xG

What xG doesn't reflect is that City took their foot off the gas after 3 nil deliberately. All stats are flawed in some way, just need to be used as part of a wider context
Click to expand...
I understand it but it is the stupidest stat. The only stat that really matters is how many times the ball goes in the opposition net.
 
dickie davies said:
xG is bollocks
A penalty, which must be one of largest opportunities to score, isn't counted as a full point
It's calculated by % of all the penalties ever recorded that have been scored
So if that is 4 in 5 (80%) then xG recorded Haalands pen yesterday as 0.8 of a chance
And to think , some people have studied every shot /goal to record these stats for xG

If you put Erling Haaland on a 1v1 with the keeper and Raheem Sterling in the same situation, who would you put your money on scoring!
Surely whoever the chance falls to makes a huge difference in expectation of if a goal is scored or not
Click to expand...
Confused, you will be. What a load of nonsense, as I said in my original post.
 
madloaf said:
Or that the goalkeepers faced on those occasions with sterling out performed their expected saves (xS?). It assumes all things are equal and that scoring in minute 1 is the same as minute 90 in a game where the result matters or a meaningless game on a rainy day or a sunny day at 2-0 or 0-7. That's why it's complete codswallop.
Click to expand...
You could say that about any stat. Your issue is with stats as a concept not xG specifically
 
jackl31 said:
You could say that about any stat. Your issue is with stats as a concept not xG specifically
Click to expand...
I assume you meant to post that as a question. The answer is that football is too complex with too many moving parts and i specifically dislike xg as, for me at least, it provides no insight as it removes all context. I have no problem with statistics in general.
 
dickie davies said:
xG IMO represents expected goals
I'd expect Haaland to score a penalty, especially when his record for us is 100%
Haaland isn't outperforming his xG at all as he is the deadliest striker on the planet
And we certainly do not need xG to tell us Sterling should be scoring more goals. Even my shitty eyesight can see that miles away
Click to expand...

You can't have an IMO about what it represents. It's the same model applied across all match situationsa. Haaland is outperforming his xG, that is factual

What you are describing is that he's meeting your personal expectations. xG helps us prove he's the deadliest striker on the planet!

I agree we don't need xG for that specific situation but that doesn't mean it's a useless stat
 
jackl31 said:
You could say that about any stat. Your issue is with stats as a concept not xG specifically
Click to expand...
I wonder what the stat is for a guy with 168 posts over 12 or so years, to all of a sudden be posting like mad in an irrelevant thread about xG or Xg or what ever.

I'd say the xP was quite low 0.004 but the guy has overperformed and is currently at 3.01 Xp.

He must like to get worked up by stats or something?
 
madloaf said:
I assume you meant to post that as a question. The answer is that football is too complex with too many moving parts and i specifically dislike xg as, for me at least, it provides no insight as it removes all context. I have no problem with statistics in general.
Click to expand...
All statistics remove context in some way

For example, if you forget xG look at the shots on target from yesterday:
City 4 Leicester 4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top