Xg....Question

Yeah its definitely for the more nerdy types. The term 'Expected goals' itself is stupid especially if used post match, as it implies what should have happened rather than what actually happened which is useless. Chance quality or value would make more sense

 

Was listening to talksport this morning, thats when the Coventry stat was mentioned, I have to agree with Ally McCoist over you sorry mate

 

There’s a reason he’s not had a job in 11 years i reckon.

 

You being serious ha, works nearly every day on tv/radio so must av smmat about him?

 

It was tongue in cheek, but i’ll take the opinions of the people that work with these statistics daily over someone working in the media.

If they weren’t useful they wouldn’t exist, simple as that. It costs money for clubs to get access to this data and every club signs up for it. If it wasn’t useful they wouldn’t do it would they.

 

Kind of get what you saying mate, in my eyes it would not be the stat I would be judging players by tho.

 

It’s not used solely though, it’s used in combination with other stats, with traditional scouting etc.

Personally i think it’s useful. If a player has an xG much lower than their actual goals, that’s a decent indicator that they’re not getting chances but are overperforming with the chances they do get.

Doesn’t tell the whole story of course, that could be because they’re not getting themselves into the right positions etc. or could be that the rest of their team aren’t creating. That’s where other factors would play into it such as heatmaps, scouting etc.

Similarly if a player has a much higher xG compared to their goals it could indicate that the team is playing well and the player is just not finishing for example. (as was the case with Watters in my opinion)