Damn right I expected them, and failure to score from some great chances tonight cost us. But unlike Saturday, we played some good football and created opportunities. DKD goal. Phillips ricochet shot. DKD just wide Roberts header, great save but should have done better. Expected score at half time: 3-0 or 4-0. Maybe to 1 if you're generous to Reading, they were dire. Phillips squares to Humphrys (not sure why, could take it himself) Humphrys in 6 yard box, needed a better cross to avoid having to take a touch Roberts header from corner again, another great save Earl free header from corner in 6 yard box Phillips header from corner Earl goal Expected goals at full time - at least 7, could have been 10. TBF Reading were much better 2nd half and although their 2 goals were soft, they gave it a good go and got the rub of the green. Shouldn't have mattered. I'm a bit baffled having listened to a lot of people moaning on the way out, then reading stuff on here that suggests anyone really expects anything more from our slightly-above-average league one squad at this point in time. Today was a sign of progress for me. A bit like the Cambridge game, we were on the right track but didn't quite have the quality at either end to nail it. A good response to a real setback against Wigan. My pre-season expectations weren't very high and I'll be delighted if we finish top 6. There's work to do to get there for sure, but performances like tonight aren't the ones to worry about.
Barnsley - 21 attempts, 11 on target, 2 scored. Reading - 3 attempts, 2 goals. If you're Reading you've got to wonder how you came away with a point.
Xg according to this site - https://footystats.org/england/barnsley-fc-vs-reading-fc-h2h-stats#7477935 Us 2.14, Reading 1.11. Not sure I believe it was that close given the myriad chances we wasted, especially from corners kicks - at least 4 were put wide or over by Roberts, Earl, Mael
Nope. If you looks back over previous seasons XG is a great predictor of underperforming or over performing teams. Just for one example, I tracked it in the Stendel season and after about a third of the season it had us way under our expected return based on XG, and Sunderland who were either top or top 3 way over their expected XG……..which turned out exactly as indicated. Lots of other examples where this has been a correct indicator.
That’s your opinion and welcome to it. The only expected goal I would have as such would be an absolute “sitter”
Last 3 games we’ve had 54 shots and 26 corners yet failed to win any of the games , mind boggling really.
Isn't that a good example of why XG isn't accurate? As you've just explained that after 15 games we were nowhere near what the expected goals thought and neither were Sunderland?
No it’s accurate because although it’s a good chance, it doesn’t mean that you were going to score it. It stands to reason, that a team that regularly creates more chances than they score (there’s an Xg for chances conceded so it’s an easy comparison), would eventually ‘make it right’ as the season goes on and the team improves. Of course this isn’t guaranteed, or always the case, but there’s plenty of examples of it ending up being true. It’s also good for showing the difference between open teams that create a lot of chances and concede a lot (us) which usually results in a average league position, teams that don’t create many chances and don’t concede many chances, which is a average to low position, teams that don’t create chances and concede lots of chances, which is almost always bottom third and of course the ideal, which is create lots of chances and don’t concede many chances. In the Stendel season again as an example, our Xg was the latter, and predetermined our rise to 2nd before we actually got there.
https://www.besoccer.com/new/corner-kicks-stats-and-success-rate-guide-1287492 Another 25 corners or so and we might expect to see a goal
