xG table

Should being the operative word. Unfortunately we are in the bottom 3 because we have average players, terrible recruitment and a stubborn manager.
and didn't take some great chances, had a number of ref decisions go against us and let in some really poor goals. It highlights what we know, the biggest problem is letting in some goals that should have been preventable.
 
To be
It's fairly complicated, but it factors for chances created, and then whether they were wrong foot, correct foot, header, players positions etc, and gives a probability that the chance would be scored for the "average" player in that particular league, against an average keeper. It's the most accurate metric of chance creation for, and against, which is how a game is often assessed on what the result should have likely been.

Something like a penalty would be xG of 0.75, as a player would be expected to score 75% of the time, and a 2 yarder might be like 0.03, to reflect the 3% probability. Then these are summed up to like 0.78, so on an average of games you would expect to score once in ~4/5 of them.

Then the sum of all these chances is added up, to give you total xG and xGA, fo that game.

Our games are listed here, and you can click show xG to see what the chance creation was, you can click each game to see what made up those totals.

Some teams score more than their xG if they have exceptional finishers, or just get lucky, and some get less if they finish poorly, or are unlucky.

I think xG points is calculated from If you have a higher xG (expected goals for) with a sufficient margin over the xGA (expected goals against) then you would be predicted a win, if it's close it goes down as a draw and if you're sufficiently behind then it goes down as a loss.

Some people don't agree with it, but they can't explain why, when you ask them about the detail.

I think it's a great tool/ indicator of how a game went and what the score should have roughly been, under "normal" circumstances. It marries up with my thought that we've missed far too many chances, and the opposition have been unexpectedly clinical.
I I explained exactly what the problem with the stat was.
 
It's actually very scientific as it is literally based on recorded data from a massive sample size.
It isn't perfect but it's much more accurate than using the basic stats we are used to seeing on our screens.
There is a reason why Brentford have been able to transform their club when using data based on xG modelling and Brighton are doing the same (although with a billionaire owner).
Exactly, you recruit strikers that have a high goals:xG ratio, those boys can finish.

If we had used this stat when looking at Britt, we would see that he was a complete waste and wouldn't have signed him. He scores tap ins, high xG chances, but barely scores anything that's difficult, so he isn't a high quality player. He also misses quite a few high xG chances. How many 0.75% penalties did he miss?
 
It's fairly complicated, but it factors for chances created, and then whether they were wrong foot, correct foot, header, players positions etc, and gives a probability that the chance would be scored for the "average" player in that particular league, against an average keeper. It's the most accurate metric of chance creation for, and against, which is how a game is often assessed on what the result should have likely been.

Something like a penalty would be xG of 0.75, as a player would be expected to score 75% of the time, and a 2 yarder might be like 0.03, to reflect the 3% probability. Then these are summed up to like 0.78, so on an average of games you would expect to score once in ~4/5 of them.

Then the sum of all these chances is added up, to give you total xG and xGA, fo that game.

Our games are listed here, and you can click show xG to see what the chance creation was, you can click each game to see what made up those totals.

Some teams score more than their xG if they have exceptional finishers, or just get lucky, and some get less if they finish poorly, or are unlucky.

I think xG points is calculated from If you have a higher xG (expected goals for) with a sufficient margin over the xGA (expected goals against) then you would be predicted a win, if it's close it goes down as a draw and if you're sufficiently behind then it goes down as a loss.

Some people don't agree with it, but they can't explain why, when you ask them about the detail.

I think it's a great tool/ indicator of how a game went and what the score should have roughly been, under "normal" circumstances. It marries up with my thought that we've missed far too many chances, and the opposition have been unexpectedly clinical.
When people create xG tables they can use different ways to interpret the result therefore you can see a few differences between them.
The actual way to calculate Expected Points (xP) is that there is a calculation based on total xG and xG per shot and it gives you xP which is based off historic data just like xG. e.g how many times did 2.63 - 0.43 result in 3 points going to each team. This may give the home team an xP of 2.43 and the away team 0.57 xP.
A good website I use is understat.com but this only gives the xP tables for about 5 different leagues, mainly use it to help with Fantasy football.
 
The 4th most creative side in the championship, and with 13 goals from 14.2 xG we've just about put our chances away, but you could certainly argue that a high quality forward signing to play with Muniz, or Muniz signed before season started would see a greater goal return than we have.

Flip side, we restrict the opposition to less good opportunities than anyone else, but with 15 goals conceded from an xGA of 7.5 things have gone badly at that end. You can put 3 goals (stoke, Reading, QPR) down to referee errors (reality is our xGA should be even lower), but that still leaves 4.5 goals conceded that shouldn't have. That doesn't include Giles OG which will have an xGA of zero. We've been unfortune with a worldie from Willock at QPR, a mishit shot turning into a perfect throughball at Watford, but we also have made poor decision in defence. Get the back 5 working as a unit, and maybe consider the CDM position in front, and we should start to climb quickly.
we've conceded 3 goals from outside the box, I can't imagine there are teams with any more than that
 
yes, 1 in a 100 chance seems reasonable. Reality that's rounded up, as no chance is 0% and there are no fractions of a % in xG. So it's probably closer to 1 in 200 or 300 for an average champ player
To be fair with the reality of the situation, with it being a striker and the keeper so far off his line, it would have been a higher probability I expect.

There's a reason not many goals are scored from that far out, as people don't attempt them, as from that position they may be able to work a better chance and as keepers are usually in a good position.

I had little against him going for that mind, it was probably on target and a little more on it and it would have been a goal. It was risking 1 point to get three, assuming we wouldn't have expected to concede a chance in the last minute or so, never mind a fluke goal. He could have squared it or tried to hold onto it, but we would likely have lost the ball anyway.

My larger concern was the first goal we conceded, why Paddy didn't slide for the ball against Pedro, why Mowatt slid in stupidly when Sarr had the ball on his left foot and got turned inside out, and he could have largely blocked a left-foot shot on his feet anyway. Why Mowatt defended the wrong target initially (the lesser threat), why Mowatt was on the line he was when he could see Clarke playing Sarr on-side. How Clarke missed a free header from 6 yards out. All of those are basic individual errors, from players we should expect more from.
 
We all laughed at wood gate when he claimed the table was wrong…

it’s a good indicator of performance, but at the end of the day only one stat counts and I’d rather us be playing rubbish and higher than good and lower…🤷🏼‍♂️
 
When people create xG tables they can use different ways to interpret the result therefore you can see a few differences between them.
The actual way to calculate Expected Points (xP) is that there is a calculation based on total xG and xG per shot and it gives you xP which is based off historic data just like xG. e.g how many times did 2.63 - 0.43 result in 3 points going to each team. This may give the home team an xP of 2.43 and the away team 0.57 xP.
A good website I use is understat.com but this only gives the xP tables for about 5 different leagues, mainly use it to help with Fantasy football.
Yeah, I can bet there are differences with the interpretation of the points, but either way they still correlate well with position. I don't think I've ever seen a team so far away from their expected position after 11 games or so, we're 21 places out. In the last few years, the furthest outliers have been 8-10 places in the champo.

I'd like to see how Opta do it (if they do actually do it for league position), but I don't think the general public get that sort of access, which I assume the clubs pay a lot for.
 
We all laughed at wood gate when he claimed the table was wrong…

it’s a good indicator of performance, but at the end of the day only one stat counts and I’d rather us be playing rubbish and higher than good and lower…🤷🏼‍♂️
Woodgate was wrong, unless he thought we were one place out, maybe that's what he meant.

1663759135411.png
I don't think there is any chance we will go down, so on that assumption I think I'd rather us playing as we are (more like the earlier games, less like the recent games) and asusming we're likely to get better as the players bed in, but getting what we deserve, or expecting the results tide to change.

I'd be more concerned at this stage if we were scraping wins which we don't deserve, and thinking that was going to be as good as it gets, as that tide will certianly change if you don't get better. Teams playing poorly over the course of a season have no chance of going up or even making the playoffs, and even less chance of surviving in the prem.

We ultimately need to be playing well, for the style we're playing, and if we have the right people putting the ball in the net, and the right ones keeping it out, then we'll do well (for the remaining games).

I can see what could happen mind, we bottle it and sack Wilder, or he walks and then some other guy comes in and we play **** (a lot worse than now), and more defensive, but scrape wins against bad sides and end up mid table, wiht no sign of doign any better.
 
Look at this way. Wilder could use every stat available, use it to try and work out how we could improve, where gaps in our recruitment are and what we could do differently.

Or, like many of our fans, I suppose he could just cry into his milk and berate his players because the league table should be taken as the only metric of performance available. Old school.

I suspect, as Viv implies, some don't like it because they like to moan, they've decided they don't like Wilder, and contradicts the narrative they built up in their head that we're completely ***** and Wilder is useless.
 
We are still 5th favourites to finish in the top 6.

I know bookies can be wrong on occasions, but I tend to use them as a measure.
 
It's been 10 games for goodness sake.
Why do we forget about last season? You dress it up and make the stats work in your favour however you want, but the fact of the matter is the last 10 games of last season and the first 10 games of this season we’ve been rubbish, and this XG stat won’t convince me otherwise.
 
We are looking at the wrong end of the team.
Only Hull have conceded more that us

Sort that first
The problem with the back end is players who assume are good enough, but who are making individual errors, which are a little out of character, that can only sort itself. We've also had couple of players out. Also a bit of a lack of form of McNair and Howson, either that or they've just got worse, not sure how you can make them better at that age, obviously we can drop McNair, and have done, but we can't drop Howson, we've got nobody else.

We've missed chances all over the park, but we know Watmore's not a great finisher and seemingly Forss and Hoppe are not up to the task yet/ or wanted by the manager, or they would have been picked. Obviously missing Chuba is hurting, which I'm surprised to be saying, he could work well with Muniz, we'll soon see I guess, but it might take a couple of games to become familiar.
 
Why do we forget about last season? You dress it up and make the stats work in your favour however you want, but the fact of the matter is the last 10 games of last season and the first 10 games of this season we’ve been rubbish, and this XG stat won’t convince me otherwise.

The whole point of that xG stat is to highlight how poor our finishing has been.

A large part of the reason we've had rubbish results is because we don't put away many of the big chances we manage to create.

We're also conceding soft/fluke goals by the barrelful.
We've got the lowest expected goals conceded in the Championship too.

I'm not sure why some are taking offence at the stats.
They indicate that we create plenty of chances and aren't exposed to too many, but we need to do better with the chances that do occur.
They're not saying that we "deserve" to be 1st in table, or that we've been robbed, it's just a helpful stat to help show where we can improve.
 
Back
Top