Something to piss a few off , XG table (5 Viewers)

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
The table is showing how many wins draws and losses we would be on based on expected goals for and against .

Long story short , we're creating alot
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
So basically are strikers are shit. We’re creating enough chances to be in the playoffs but we’re 5th bottom because we can’t score.

Plus opposition strikers have finished exceptionally well against us (or our keeper has let in some howlers).
 

CV22SBA

Well-Known Member
Plus opposition strikers have finished exceptionally well against us (or our keeper has let in some howlers).
probably evened out by some of the world class saves he made. Especially QPR, that goes in and no way we would have gone on to win the game and would probably find ourselves in the bottom 3 now.
 

Cally Fedora

Well-Known Member
Backs up three points I think are relevant to us. Our strikers need to settle, when we’re around the box we need to be a bit less intricate and possession in itself wins you nothing.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Backs up three points I think are relevant to us. Our strikers need to settle, when we’re around the box we need to be a bit less intricate and possession in itself wins you nothing.

Surely it’s the opposite of the last two because we’re creating good chances?
 

ProfessorbyGrace

Well-Known Member
There should be a CAB rating incorporated into this system: a Cow’s Arse Banjo set of results, of which (currently) would reveal that our players have the best overall ability in the league, to statistically miss a cow’s arse with a very large banjo, at optimal hitting range.

Top of the league. ⚽️✌️
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Said the same Saturday. Look at the table, lots of teams (14) are within 3 places of where they ought to be based on xg, 19 teams within 4 places in a very tight league.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Wait. So he’s created 2.8 goals that wouldn’t have happened without him?

It’s an extrapolation of xGOT (expected goals on target). The basis of it is that an ‘average’ keeper would have stopped 2.8 more goals (obviously broken down into numerous fractions).

My gut feel is that we’re conceding very few glaring chances, but when we do they are scored.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It’s an extrapolation of xGOT (expected goals on target). The basis of it is that an ‘average’ keeper would have stopped 2.8 more goals (obviously broken down into numerous fractions).

My gut feel is that we’re conceding very few glaring chances, but when we do they are scored.

Makes sense. It really does feel that with the new back line and hopefully the forwards starting to fire and we’ll be OK.
 
D

Deleted member 9744

Guest
But I thought it was all Eccles fault and all we had to do was drop him and all would be fine? Of course the strikers and am have been the problem.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But I thought it was all Eccles fault and all we had to do was drop him and all would be fine? Of course the strikers and am have been the problem.

I don’t think anyone has said that and the strikers have had plenty of criticism
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Thing that confuses me is there seems different data


 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Also if your forwards do misfire it may be they are just inferior and need more chances to convert
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Thing that confuses me is there seems different data


The data in the picture above is done on a game by game basis

Basically should we have won drew or lost that match based on quality of chances created
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The data in the picture above is done on a game by game basis

Basically should we have won drew or lost that match based on quality of chances created

Does every data set have the same original source?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top