I’ve never been a fan of this particular stat as I think there are too many variables in what is classed as a goal scoring chance. If anyone is an expert of this stat can they please tell me how Coventry scored 7 goals on Saturday yet had an Xg of only 1.1? I for one am baffled.
Simply put, they use data from across the world to determine the liklihood of a player scoring a similar chance. So for Coventry, the goals they scored were more difficult to convert so resulted in a low expected goal, but high actual goal. I lost my **** with Sormaz when he tried to use XG to defend Watters. If his expected goals we're higher than actual goals, it means he lacks the quality and composure required to put easy chances away.
Just a new obscure stat that doesn't add to any entertainment factor, so Garth Crooks & co can keep their job.
Old Mladen got plenty wrong but don't think you can lay that one at his door. I'm sure that was Neerav, now i think he's decent bloke but what he knows about professional football you could write on the back of a postage stamp. It was the infamous top 3 squad and at least 5 championship standard players car crash interview. I hope all concerned have learnt the lesson a little knowledge can be a bad thing and dont ever put Neerav in front of microphone talking about on field matters.
I know Nareev said it in that 'golden' top 4 squad interview of his, but then I read or watched Sormaz justifying that comment and that's what boiled my piss. Nareev isn't the statatition. Mladen was meant to be and that's why it irked me to comment at the time.
