Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Should the data hold up all season it would be hard to argue against that point
Something to piss a few off , XG table (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Evo1883
- Start date
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Spotty xG stats for both because of the leagues they’ve played in, particularly Wright who hit form in Turkey, but the limited data suggests Simms generally over performs his xG and Wright underperforms. Take what you will from that.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
This shouldn't really come as a surprise to anybody. We are a very goal-shy team throughout. Looking at the goals scored against us, it always feels like we need 2 or 3 of those kind of chances to actually do something the other way.
It is imperative that our strikers find some form, because the rest of the team are very much incapable of contributing significantly. As Godden hasn't scored in 9, Simms only scoring in one game all season, and Wright huffing and puffing, it isn't surprising that we have been failing to pick up results.
It is imperative that our strikers find some form, because the rest of the team are very much incapable of contributing significantly. As Godden hasn't scored in 9, Simms only scoring in one game all season, and Wright huffing and puffing, it isn't surprising that we have been failing to pick up results.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
His shot accuracy is higher though so that I assume means his efforts are saved more?
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Yes
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Out of interest can you filter these by a range of games or just a season? Wondering if you can tease out whether a player is improving/declining/staying the same.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
You can filter season
The save was. I’m not his biggest fan and glad Collins has a chance but that save at QPR was world class.“World class”
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
I suppose id rather be in the position that we are creating chances and missing as that's probably the easiest to expect a change in (if the strikers can somehow rediscover their finishing ability). Just a bit of a concern that they need to sort that out asap really.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
You're still boring to watch
Greggs
Well-Known Member
At least I've got a watch
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Greggs
Well-Known Member
I win
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Seen a stat that the other day on here that Godden had missed the most big changes in the league with 7.
In second place for the whole division was Haji and Simms with 6.
That's 19 goals there.
In second place for the whole division was Haji and Simms with 6.
That's 19 goals there.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
There’s also a subtle difference that Wright for me creates more openings for himself whereas someone like Godden relies more heavily on service.
Haven't we always been quite goal shy - I mean the last few seasons - like need a lot of chances to actually score?
And what do you do about a problem like not converting chances? It seems like one of the most difficult problems to solve from a management point of view.
Overall, sounds like if Wright was to start converting we might start winning.
And what do you do about a problem like not converting chances? It seems like one of the most difficult problems to solve from a management point of view.
Overall, sounds like if Wright was to start converting we might start winning.
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
They scored goals which by the model had a very small chance of going in
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No goal is 1 xG, a pen is only 0.7, Hamer would regularly score goals with very low xG.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Looks like a load of Bollocks to me. Overall as an average, our xG for is 1.46 per game and our XG against is 1.25 per game. The difference is negligible really. We've score slightly less than what we are expected 1.19 goals per game, and conceding slightly more than we would expect 1.31 goals per game
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
But we’ve drawn the most in the league. Conceding just 2 less (0.125 per game) and scoring 2 more (again, 0.125 per game) would see us in 5th.
Blind-Faith
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It might seem like a small thing, but that makes a big difference overall. xG shows we should be scoring more than we're conceding, but actual G shows we are scoring less than we're conceding. In a game that changes a win to a loss.
BlueSkiesForever
Well-Known Member
I get that we’re expected to score a lot more according to those stats and I also realise our strikers haven’t been great so far but I disagree that we’ve created a lot. Maybe from a stats perspective we’ve “created chances” but I don’t think we really have “created chances”, all our attempts at goal are long-winded and lacking fluidity, they’re mostly easy to defend against and just from what I’ve seen most weeks require perfect passes to come off and the ball to land precisely at the feet of the strikers, something which we’re awful at doing.
Personally I don’t mind stats and it obviously seems stupid to argue against them but just from the eye test it doesn’t look like we should have been expected to score as many goals as that table suggests. I think of the chances we’ve had in recent weeks, there’s definitely been a couple of easy goals missed but most of our “chances” are awkward headers or long range shots or tight angle shots or efforts that get swamped by defenders. I can probably count on one hand how many goals we realistically should have scored in the last 3 or 4 games.
Our strikers have been poor, granted, but I don’t think the blame lies solely at their feet, they’ve been feeding off scrappy chances and I personally think we need to sort out a more coherent midfield first and then if our strikers are missing multiple golden opportunities we can blame them. Just my thoughts anyway, I’m sure others will disagree.
Personally I don’t mind stats and it obviously seems stupid to argue against them but just from the eye test it doesn’t look like we should have been expected to score as many goals as that table suggests. I think of the chances we’ve had in recent weeks, there’s definitely been a couple of easy goals missed but most of our “chances” are awkward headers or long range shots or tight angle shots or efforts that get swamped by defenders. I can probably count on one hand how many goals we realistically should have scored in the last 3 or 4 games.
Our strikers have been poor, granted, but I don’t think the blame lies solely at their feet, they’ve been feeding off scrappy chances and I personally think we need to sort out a more coherent midfield first and then if our strikers are missing multiple golden opportunities we can blame them. Just my thoughts anyway, I’m sure others will disagree.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But I can think of a fair few chances for each of the strikers that they've either hit wide or straight at the keeper. While we do often have a quite laborious build up play, the strikers are missing chances
BlueSkiesForever
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah definitely, like I said there’s clearly been some opportunities our strikers have missed which should have been put away but I think quite a few of them have been tricky angles or the ball’s bobbled around or the defence has made it awkward to get a clear shot away. I think it’s probably fine margins but I don’t completely blame our strikers, I definitely blame them somewhat but imo a lot of the time they’re not being given the easiest route to goal from our midfielders.
