Championship Team Stats (4 Viewers)

Jamiepwns

Well-Known Member
so what does that mean?
To put it basically:

Based on where our shots have come from, and how they were taken, you then compare this to thousands of other similar shots to work out the probability of a goal coming from it.

It doesn't mean much on its own, but as we've only scored two, it shows that some shots were fluffed or the keeper did well to save it.

Like a penalty has an xG of 0.76, but against Barnsely the keeper saved it.
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Basically means we're creating good chances but obviously not taking them.

Bit dubious as to how these guys are measuring xG though. I don't know much about them & think they're new kids on the block?
All the more established, reputable stats sites have us at around 2.6.
 

SkyBlueSoul

Well-Known Member
Update on this after yesterday. I’d say Ben Mayhew’s stats back up what we’ve seen so far, creating lots but not finishing enough

9921a939e6f12a3d30d432a3015b11fa.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The premier league equivalent has Wolves in the top 6 3 places higher than Tottenham
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
I think XG tables are generally pointless in many ways .. the pleasing thing for me focusing solely on city is we we are creating many more good chances than in recent seasons and that's a positive for me .. just got to start taking our chances
 

lord_garrincha

Well-Known Member


Attackers/midfielders who are poor at finishing or just more unlucky than everyone else? :unsure:

Lets break down the midfielders... Who have played (no Bright):

Sheaf = Zero goals for the club. Only time he has gone close this season was a deflected shot onto the bar first day.
Hamer = Zero goals since February. We know he can do it as he scored 5 prior to that.
Kelly = Apart from his day out at Wycombe. Nothing for years.
Allen & Shipley = Have chipped in to an extent, but are not regular starters.
O'Hare = We all know he needs to improve on finishing & his final ball.

You can't just rely on strikers.
 

COV

Well-Known Member
Lets break down the midfielders... Who have played (no Bright):

Sheaf = Zero goals for the club. Only time he has gone close this season was a deflected shot onto the bar first day.
Hamer = Zero goals since February. We know he can do it as he scored 5 prior to that.
Kelly = Apart from his day out at Wycombe. Nothing for years.
Allen & Shipley = Have chipped in to an extent, but are not regular starters.
O'Hare = We all know he needs to improve on finishing & his final ball.

You can't just rely on strikers.

O'Hare could shift this ratio on his own if he produced a finish every now and then

But I do think the strikers need to deliver more- look at how many times we hit the f**king post- all very dramatic but ultimately its a miss
 

lord_garrincha

Well-Known Member
O'Hare could shift this ratio on his own if he produced a finish every now and then

And he needs to... He is an attacking midfielder.

I can actually see him playing deeper as he gets older if he can't address it, as he has the work rate & engine to do so.
 

Londonccfcfan

Well-Known Member
There will be games where it practically gos in off our backsides / OPPO score own goals for us. Seems Millwall bore the brunt of our unluckyness last year in both games.

The luck will turn that's football. And it will all average out over 46 games.l
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member


Attackers/midfielders who are poor at finishing or just more unlucky than everyone else? :unsure:


Or a geometrical motif that could be weaker at some points (when it does get measured in xG), but stronger in other places (when it doesn't get measured by xG).

xG doesn't measure the ebb and the flow of games.

The uniqueness of position and all that.
 
Last edited:

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
I suspect it’s the midfielders but would like to see a breakdown of xG by player in the squad.

Data taken from an app called FotMob and it doesn’t quite tally to 9.8 xG but still gives a decent reflection:

Gyokeres - 3.09 (2)
O’Hare - 1.24
McFadzean - 1.15 (1)
Waghorn - 0.70
Godden - 0.43 (1)
Maatsen - 0.43
Sheaf - 0.27
Hamer - 0.25
Allen - 0.21 (1)
Hyam - 0.11
Dabo - 0.09
Clarke-Salter - 0.08
Rose - 0.07
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Data taken from an app called FotMob and it doesn’t quite tally to 9.8 xG but still gives a decent reflection:

Gyokeres - 3.09 (2)
O’Hare - 1.24
McFadzean - 1.15 (1)
Waghorn - 0.70
Godden - 0.43 (1)
Maatsen - 0.43
Sheaf - 0.27
Hamer - 0.25
Allen - 0.21 (1)
Hyam - 0.11
Dabo - 0.09
Clarke-Salter - 0.08
Rose - 0.07

You’d really want more from Györkeres and Waghorn looking at that. So maybe it is the strikers. Even removing Györkeres penalty miss, he should have one more for the chances he gets.
 

COV

Well-Known Member
You’d really want more from Györkeres and Waghorn looking at that. So maybe it is the strikers. Even removing Györkeres penalty miss, he should have one more for the chances he gets.

It is the strikers imho
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It is the strikers imho

To be fair to Györkeres (and O’Hare) they’re second in the number of shots lists for the division with 17. It doesn’t work like this but fag packet: 3.09/17 is an average of 0.18 per shot it would be lower because one of those was a pen at I think 0.76. O’Hares is even lower at 0.07 per shot. So lots of low quality chances maybe than missing a few sitters. Anecdotally that seems about right.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top