Shows we need a proper striker upfront. For all the abuse Watters gets we actually miss him when he’s not available.
I have absolutely no idea what that graph represents nor do I pretend to understand XG......no matter how many times I have it explained!! Anyway we are top....so I'm taking that ...thank you!
Thank you Dreamboy...so does that include any shot...you know like some rubbish pass back....or ones that go out for a throw in etc?
Your xG for a specific shot depends on the likelihood of it being a goal. For example a penalty kick carries an xG of 0.79, which means there’s a 79% chance of a goal. If you have a speculative punt from 40 yards with the goalie on his line I would imagine the xG for that shot would be 0.01, ie. A 1% chance of scoring. No data is perfect but it is used a lot in football now to give a guide as to the quality of chances you are creating etc.
Thanks for explaining that. I may be being cynical, but in my minds eye, I now have an image of a coach explaining all the various types of chances to his players and saying, "So to summarise, I don't want anyone taking shots with less than 0.8 XG. If in doubt, play it backwards." Just another thought... Are the chances weighted in any way for the quality of the player? e.g. Neil Redfearn would have a better chance shooting at distance than your average midfielder. And a Premier League striker might be expected to score his chance more often than a League One striker with the same type of chance.
The calculations are specific for the situation and don’t take into account the player at all. So if your penalty taker has a 100% record, his penalty kick will still record an xG of 0.79. Exactly the same as if I took it. Or my Nan. Like I say it’s imperfect. But it used as part of wider analysis / data usage. I lean on it quite a bit when I’m playing football manager but I appreciate it’s hardly the same thing!
