Who should be our new striker?

Who do you want City to sign?


  • Total voters
    949

sky_blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Jul 2015
Messages
1,321
It's a good way to assess a tool but it's incomplete.

Some players might not overachieve, but they could have significantly higher xG than average, due to brilliant movement and dribbling for example. The overall goals in a player who overachieves their xG and a player who doesn't but has really high xG to begin with could turn out to be the same.

This isn't an argument against Kane (or in favour of Sterling) btw, it's just me saying xG can be interpreted in multiple ways, each with their own value. The level of analysis can go a lot deeper if you choose it to.
That's fair and it works in Sterling's favor, which I believe is your argument, since he relies more on movement and positioning to score goals than natural finishing. However, if we are adding context to xG, then maybe we should also talk about the fact that it is a shot-based metric and so it doesn't show up if the player didn't even shoot.

And just off the top of my head, I can remember many instances where Sterling was 1v1 against the keeper, but didn't shoot (and the keeper collected the ball), or he was in the box trying to shoot but couldn't connect, or he kept cutting inside only to lay the ball off at the final moment instead of shooting.

So in terms of accounting for golden chances that would probably have been converted into goals with a high degree of probability had someone just taken a shot, I would say Sterling would rank lower compared to the names that are being discussed.
 
Last edited:

mccity

Moderator
Joined
14 Jun 2010
Messages
20,038
That's fair and it works in Sterling's favor, which I believe is your argument, since he relies more on movement and positioning to take score goals than natural finishing. However, if we are adding context to xG, then maybe we should also talk about the fact that it is a shot-based metric and so it doesn't show up if the player didn't even shoot.

And just off the top of my head, I can remember many instances where Sterling was 1v1 against the keeper, but didn't shoot (and the keeper collected the ball), or he was in the box trying to shoot but couldn't connect, or he kept cutting inside only to lay the ball off at the final moment instead of shooting.

So in terms of accounting for golden chances that would probably have been converted into goals with a high degree of probability had someone just taken a shot, I would say Sterling would rank lower compared to the names that are being discussed.
Yeah my point was that xG alone can be quite vague; lot of room to go from all angles.
 

sky_blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Jul 2015
Messages
1,321
Yeah my point was that xG alone can be quite vague; lot of room to go from all angles.
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
 

NorCalBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jan 2010
Messages
4,297
Location
Northern California
Understat doesn't consider the location of other players when shot is taken, which is an important feature while training any xG model. Use the data from fbref.
Wow - that's a lot of data! The numbers are slightly different on fbref, for sure, and Sterling does better, but what it shows is that he was pretty good for two seasons (18-19 and 19-20), and about average, or slightly below, before and since (Understat also shows this trend, it just doesn't give him as much credit during those two years).

Fbref also underlines how good Kane's finishing is: 24% more goals than expected over the last 4 years (in the league) compared to Aguero (15% more) and Ronaldo (6% more).

Interstingly, although Salah has scored 13% more goals than expected over the last 4 years, he's actually been below average for the last couple, and most of his excess comes from an amazing 17-18 season during which he scored 35% more goals than expected.

By far the best finisher (from the obvious ones I checked out) is Messi, who's scored an incredible 45% more goals than expected in the last 4 years.

In contrast, Jesus (as much as I like him, especially playing out wide) is as poor a finisher statistically as he looks on the pitch, underperforming by 12% over the last 4 seasons.
 

NorCalBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jan 2010
Messages
4,297
Location
Northern California
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
Great point - you may be better off with a player who creates more shooting opportunities, but is a worse finisher than someone who barely creates any, but is deadly when he does. You can infer some other things from xG, but it really only shows how good players are at scoring from similarly difficult shots.
 

MCFCFanTX

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Aug 2015
Messages
1,492
Location
USA
A part of me feels we won't go for Halaand or even a traditional striker but instead a player who can play across the front 3, offer versatility while having a goal creation profile.

Think Dani Olmo, Moussa Diaby, Jonathan Ikone, Jeremy Doku, etc...
 

bluenova

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Jan 2009
Messages
1,590
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
Sadly I'm not sure even that's true.

As far as I'm aware xG has a problem comparing players who play in possession based sides with those who counter attack.

Some xG calcs take into account the number of defenders in the area (although I don't think they yet map exact positions), and others try and add multipliers to account for fast breaks, but I don't believe any gets close to being perfect.

This is important for City, as we tend to play against teams that will not only have defenders packed in the box, but they will be about as solid as a defence can be. They'll spend long periods in their exact positions, knowing where there team mates are, and as a result are hard to break down (hence why so much of City's probing play is trying to draw people out of position). Now consider how teams defend against counter attacks - how many times do we see 5 or 6 defenders back in the box but still an easy goal? It's all about the players being off balance, not in a set position, facing the wrong way etc. (Liverpool for example have been exceeding their xG by miles under Klopp, because, while they do have a lot of possession, they are more open, and very good at creating chaotic situations - exactly the kind that xG struggles with).

So, the same shot from a City player - say on the penalty spot - is often likely to much more difficult than it would be for a typical Spurs or Dortmund player (not sure why I chose those teams). The more complex xG calculators will try and compensate, but they can't get it perfect.

So, while it might be useful to compare xG between players in the same team, it's very difficult to compare between teams, especially if they have different styles.
 

Clercqs

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Oct 2015
Messages
3,163
Wow - that's a lot of data! The numbers are slightly different on fbref, for sure, and Sterling does better, but what it shows is that he was pretty good for two seasons (18-19 and 19-20), and about average, or slightly below, before and since (Understat also shows this trend, it just doesn't give him as much credit during those two years).

Fbref also underlines how good Kane's finishing is: 24% more goals than expected over the last 4 years (in the league) compared to Aguero (15% more) and Ronaldo (6% more).

Interstingly, although Salah has scored 13% more goals than expected over the last 4 years, he's actually been below average for the last couple, and most of his excess comes from an amazing 17-18 season during which he scored 35% more goals than expected.

By far the best finisher (from the obvious ones I checked out) is Messi, who's scored an incredible 45% more goals than expected in the last 4 years.

In contrast, Jesus (as much as I like him, especially playing out wide) is as poor a finisher statistically as he looks on the pitch, underperforming by 12% over the last 4 seasons.
I'm too stupid to understand how the fbref page works but what's Son at? I assume he's close to Messi's numbers in terms of over performances to xg?

If we can't get Haaland next season I'd like to see us go for Isak (unless Torres and Delap can show we don't need another striker).
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.