Expected Goals Against (5 Viewers)

Forums New posts
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Funny they have obviously changed it because footmob had it as this when I looked after the game. So according to the xG, 1-0 would have been a fair result based on quality of chances created.
Click to expand...

And that’s why, on a game-by-game basis it’s not hugely useful. It’s the equivalent of saying we’re now in excellent form because we won the last game 4-0.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
And that’s why, on a game-by-game basis it’s not hugely useful. It’s the equivalent of saying we’re now in excellent form because we won the last game 4-0.
Click to expand...
Yeah, even over the season it doesn't really take into account quality strikes, match status (e.g. opposition have scored early and just sat back for the rest of the game), you may only concede one or two chances a game but those are very good chances, so there's low xGA overall but actually they have had one of the best chances of the game.

I just get irritated that people use it to suggest have been unlucky, that the league table lies and are really a top 5 team. But we've all seen it with our own eyes, conceding soft goals, world beaters one minute, carpet beaters the next.
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
just get irritated that people use it to suggest have been unlucky, that the league table lies and are really a top 5 team.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.

If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.

It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.

If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.

It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, early on last season we were performing about par with our XG against but underperforming XG for. I’d imagine that is a lot easier to correct.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.

If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.

It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
Click to expand...
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.

There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.

And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
 
Last edited:
Evo1883

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.

There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.

And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
Click to expand...

Let's say you were a coach and your team were 20th in the league .

Would it concern you more if your team had the 3rd highest XG in the league or the 23rd highest

Do you think it would indicate anything about your teams chances of turning things around ?
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.

There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.

And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
Click to expand...
who said we’re using it to recruit?

also yes obviously you can pick out exceptions to it - that’s the whole nature of averages over time
 
SkyBlue_Bear83

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
I completely understand the concept, I just believe it's flawed. For example Collins has made some howlers but has also been on the end of some stunning strikes (e.g. Cardiff second at home, Sunderlands second, Portsmouth's second), even Bassette's header at home against Cardiff that was saved the xG was 0.47, with the pace of the ball, the height of the ball, and the positioning of the keeper I don't believe you would score it 1 in 2.

There's plenty of posters on here using xG and xGA to say we are in a false position.

And if we're using it to recruit why did we sign BTA, who underperformed his xG for two seasons running 11 league goals (12.7 xG) last season and 7 league goals (9.9 xG) the previous season.
Click to expand...
Tbf the BTA point is something that should be put towards Robins and Austin.

I think one of the major critics of BTA when we signed him from WBA fans was that generally he was quite a poor finisher.
 
Hobo

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Otis said:
I think where we are perhaps a little bit unlucky, is that pretty much every mistake at the back, leads to an opposition goal.

Usually you can make mistakes and get away with it on many occasion, because the opposing player makes a hash of things and you get a big let-off.

That has of course happened, but many a time we have made just one awful mistake and it's been a goal and/or two awful mistakes and it's been two goals.

Did start to think we were jinxed at some point, but I think it happens to many a team and you can go through spells where every error at the back results in a goal
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of mistakes we have got away with to be fair. It's just that most the ones we get away with are soon forgotten.

The main reason we have conceded so many goals is the build up of too many mistakes. Even against poor teams it hasn't been a suprise when they have scored. Because even with limited attacks they have often all come from our mistakes. Often very sloppy mistakes. Even poor teams will score one eventually.
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Bear83 said:
Tbf the BTA point is something that should be put towards Robins and Austin.

I think one of the major critics of BTA when we signed him from WBA fans was that generally he was quite a poor finisher.
Click to expand...

Daft as it sounds, I doubt he was signed for his finishing ability. Would imagine he was seen more as a defensive forward who would press and stay positionally disciplined, replacing what Godden gave us there but with more pace.

As it happens, we then signed Bassette which made the whole exercise redundant.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Evo1883 said:
Interesting comment from this Leeds fan

Click to expand...


Ah come on now can’t take a Leeds fans view of Lampard seriously.

Would be interesting to see the stats since he took over. Anecdotally I seem to recall when I’ve looked we’ve overperformed our xG/xGA
 
Evo1883

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Ah come on now can’t take a Leeds fans view of Lampard seriously.

Would be interesting to see the stats since he took over. Anecdotally I seem to recall when I’ve looked we’ve overperformed our xG/xGA
Click to expand...

In general we've been high on these tables all season , lampard has done fine really but with a very good run of fixtures
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Evo1883 said:
In general we've been high on these tables all season , lampard has done fine really but with a very good run of fixtures
Click to expand...

I don’t think we’ve over-performed yet and we’ve underperformed a few times. Jury still very much out for me.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
xG is still a load of nonense. We battered Plymouth yesterday 4-0, yet our xG was only 1.28.

It's just arbitrary nonsense.
Click to expand...

It’s not because Eccles scored two ranged efforts which are inherently low xG chances. We’ve seen Eccles take that shot to know those two goals, whilst great, were outliers.

Just as Sheaf scored that screamer v Sheffield Wednesday away in the league.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s people’s subjective opinions generally are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
T

The watchmaker

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
It’s not because Eccles scored two ranged efforts which are inherently low xG chances. We’ve seen Eccles take that shot to know those two goals, whilst great, were outliers.

Just as Sheaf scored that screamer v Sheffield Wednesday away in the league.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s people’s subjective opinions generally are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Keeper should probably have done better with three of them.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The watchmaker said:
Keeper should probably have done better with three of them.
Click to expand...

Exactly, in fact, for Sakamoto’s goal I’d have been livid if we conceded a goal like that. With Eccles’ strikes, both well struck but his 2nd should’ve been saved by the keeper. A lot of people around me asked if Brad Collins was playing for them… which says a lot.

You take it because up until Collins got dropped, we more or less conceded every shot on target we faced.
 
R

Rodders1

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
I don’t think people really do this though do they? Mostly i’ve seen people using it to assess whether we are over or underperforming, which is valid.

If we are generally underscoring versus our xG, it’s simply saying that statistically, with the chances we’ve had in the positions we’ve had, on average those chances would have been buried. If that’s sustained over a period of time it’s a robust conclusion to say we are creating chances but are not finishing them, and on average we would be expected to.

It’s not that hard a concept to grasp
Click to expand...
I always interpreted these negatively. If we over perform I think ok we were lucky really to score that many. And if we under perform it’s bloody hell our strikers are useless! (Probably prefer the latter tbh)
 
skybluecam

skybluecam

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
I thought Tats goal was a Tremendous leap Speedieesque but unchallenged, where was the defence?
Click to expand...
Their defence was poor but on that particular goal, the replays show that the GK flapped it into his own net. If he’d parried it back into the box and we get the rebound in, fair enough.

From our POV, Sakamoto did a great job to get in that position and leap up for the header, but it wasn’t a header that would beat most GKs in the league.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Yeah, even over the season it doesn't really take into account quality strikes, match status (e.g. opposition have scored early and just sat back for the rest of the game), you may only concede one or two chances a game but those are very good chances, so there's low xGA overall but actually they have had one of the best chances of the game.

I just get irritated that people use it to suggest have been unlucky, that the league table lies and are really a top 5 team. But we've all seen it with our own eyes, conceding soft goals, world beaters one minute, carpet beaters the next.
Click to expand...
Agreed that the stats don’t take ‘game state’ into account and because we’ve conceded first so often, we’re chasing games and that would distort the xG somewhat in our favour. Conceding the first goal this season has been absolutely cancerous for our season 14 times in 24 games is only bettered by Hull and Plymouth who look like two poor teams.

Overall, we’re definitely punching below our weight and the numbers show things will pick up. Generally, the xG table will reflect final standing by the end of the season.

I don’t think many are saying we should be 5th because of the xG stats, but when you have so many people whining like children saying how crap our players are, it’s simply not a fair assessment.

With the right additions in Jan, I’m optimistic we can climb up the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top