xG and proof it’s nonsense

Have you seen the goals?

Absolutely painful seeing some people talk about this on here. Just because you personally don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s bad or incorrect.

Lots of wider applications for that sentiment atm too.

 

xG might be meaningful at elite level where you can xPect a striker to put the ball in the net but in the third division where players miss absolute sitters week after week and you're lucky if a corner beats the first man then it means very little

It also has little credibility when you've got a football club owner claiming that you don't need any more strikers because one youve got has a high xG but low return meaning he's amazing apparently. In reality it means he's **** at shooting

 

It is baffling when you see Isak miss several really good chances & then it gives them such a low xg

 

It's largely a gimmick by Opta Analytics to sell to football clubs.

 

xG aside and using our own eyes, should we be going into next season with Watters as our main striker?
I've always expected him to kick on but realistically he played his way out of the squad last season and has struggled with injuries this season so maybe it's time to cut our losses.

 

Football fans massively overestimate the real level of a chance.

 

I’ve never really looked into XG much. I was just surprised Newcastle’s was so low. It was Chris Sutton on co-commentary who was the main culprit for his shock at Isak’s finishing.

Someone put the stats on here & apparently Bolton had around a 2.4 XG against us. I thought we won really well & felt pretty comfortable throughout but stats like the XG in them two games make me question what I’m watching.

 

Tbf if Chris Sutton told me it was raining I’d still have a look out of the window to check.

My view on xG, on a single game it doesn’t say an awful lot as one chance either way can swing things. However over a longer period of time it can identify which teams are genuinely good vs those that are getting lucky.

 

Don't question it, mate. Like I said, their chance was a 1 on 1 and they missed an absolute sitter when the ball went through Flavell's hands. Those 2 chances will make up the bulk of their XG. We could batter them for 87 minutes, if they have 2 decent chances in the last 3 minutes, their Xg will shoot up. Doesn't change the fact we battered them. As someone mentioned above, it's a decent stat for the team in totality, not a great stat for the striker if their Xg is higher than their actual amount of goals. It can, however, also be misleading, in the same way.

 

I read the first couple of BBC articles after he took over the job and that was more than enough for me. I guess it must be hard to find someone to churn out those weekly prediction filler pieces but surely he and they can do better than that.