Still no idea how it’s calculated but Man City’s xg was 2.8 so they got twice as many goals as expected. That’s what giving players contacts worth a quarter of a Billion pounds gets you Our xg was 2.5 so we got about half as expected That’s what having no proven strikers gets you Don’t ask me to explain why Bristol a relegation threatened club got 1.5 x their xg other than to say the magic that means we never win in Bristol was operating well
Bristol's xg seems high for a club which hadn't won at home since October, 2024, against our 4 wins out of 4 and 5 out of 6 form.
As I’ve said I’ve no idea how it works. They took 3 out of 5 clear chances and a couple of half chances we created double that but only took 1
In its defence, it does take a lot of the variables into account, which is why someone thought of it. Shots at goal is the most nonsense because it doesn’t really show what kind of shot or how effective it was. It’s all subjective though. Ultimately, the only stat that matters is who scored the most goals. The best team is always the one that scores the most, regardless of whatever stat you come up with. You don’t get owt for artistic impression….
All ex pros that I have heard mention xg are not convinced about it . Adi Moses was the latest to mention it on Saturday commentary. “Don’t get me started on xg” we’re his words ha. Make of that what you want.
xG seems fairly simple to understand, if you expect a penalty to be scored nine times out of ten then it has an xG of 0.9. Extrapolate that across shots from different areas of the pitch based on demonstrable statistical modelling and you can build a picture of how many goals a team should expect to score. I guess that's why Adie is a pundit not a coach or manager.
Wasn’t our shot count v actual goals scored under Stendel similar because we shot from anywhere in their half? Difference being we also had some decent goalscoring forwards.