xG table

Like West Brom in that list, I've watched 4 of their games this season and they've had huge chances in all of them and squandered them, and somehow ended up drawing each match.

If their finishing improved they'd shoot right up the table.

That obviously doesn't change the fact that their finishing is poor.

festa5 said:

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.

Click to expand...

we're playing **** mate. I was one of Wilders biggest supporters and was well chuffed when we signed him. But we're doing rubbish. Have you watched the last 2 games? We were F***ing awful. It's a team playing with no confidence and no structure. It isn't people liking to moan. Were doing ****. We are near the bottom of the league not the top. This thread should be entitled burying your head in the sand.

uncle_rico said:

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.

Click to expand...

We were not that bad in the last 10, we still picked up 13 points (and the games before we got a great points haul). We were very poor against Hull and Huddersfield, but should have beat Fulham. Our season was probably done by the Preston game, Luton were at home to Reading who were already safe, and Fulham were in Marbella. But even if not, at halftime it was all over, then we folded like a deck of cards (which was awful).

Easy answer though is we got found out having no attacking threat down the left, so they blocked the right which left us in a bit of a pickle.

I know some people may think I am off my rocker, but looks at this we are top of expected league and we know some players are under performers say on last season levels, what would happen if they started to perform to their full potential and we got more breaks?

xG is not a good stat for gauging overall performance of a team. It is, probably, the best we have to gauge how close a game was in-play. However, when taken in isolation it is very misleading and I would caution against taking it at face value without understanding how it is calculated. Some problems with xG:

Let's look at a simple example, penalty kicks in-game. The xG given by Opta for a penalty kick is 0.76. Globally the chance of scoring from a penalty is 0.754 so 0.76 looks like a good average. However penalties in the prem for example have a 70% conversion rate. I suspect because the keepers are better, I don't know. In international football the conversion rate goes up to 78.74. I suspect because of the variation in the abilities of the keepers faced.

the standard deviation on international penalty kicks is 37.6. This is huge and demonstrates that it is quite difficult to assign a number to the chances of scoring a penalty. It becomes much more complex in open play.

In March this year Opta pretty much dumped their xG methodology and released a new version as the old one was poor, by their own admission. It did not account for the position of the goalkeeper was the main reason given, but there were other frailties in it.

Opta use a combination of AI optical recognition and a human analyst. Not sure how well their analysts are trained or how much leaway they get.

Overall, there isn't really anything better, but it has to be analysed in tandem with other stats. We will know more by the end of this season on whether the Opta improvements make the statistic more reliable.

When gauging who will win a game of football, predictively, the most accurate statistic is relative position in the table. It's a simple stat, but works better than xG. I suspect wages of the 11 on the pitch is a better indicator of relative chances of the two teams, but I have no idea whether this is the case or not. Points per game over 4 and 8 games give better predictive performance than xG. I suspect because they capture the general wellbeing, physical and mental of the respective teams.

It's a team invasion sport and it is why it is difficult to predict. It's also why it is fantastic.

Does that answer your question @Andy_W as to why I don't like xG.

Redwurzel said:

I know some people may think I am off my rocker, but looks at this we are top of expected league and we know some players are under performers say on last season levels, what would happen if they started to perform to their full potential and we got more breaks?

Click to expand...

I agree with you and don't think you are mad. Our performances have been better, generally, than results suggest.

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:

we're playing **** mate. I was one of Wilders biggest supporters and was well chuffed when we signed him. But we're doing rubbish. Have you watched the last 2 games? We were F***ing awful. It's a team playing with no confidence and no structure. It isn't people liking to moan. Were doing ****. We are near the bottom of the league not the top. This thread should be entitled burying your head in the sand.

Click to expand...

F***ing awful? Not saying we were great, but v Rotherham we had several excellent chances and they had none. 7 or 8 times out of 10 if that happens you win that game. Probably by a couple of goals. If that's us paying F***ing awful it bodes well. Playing that badly (allegedly) and still creating enough chances to win easily, that's a good sign then no?

For too many it's black and white. Win = we played well (or were at least ok). Fail to win = we were F***ing *****.

It's rarely that straightforward.

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:

we're playing **** mate. I was one of Wilders biggest supporters and was well chuffed when we signed him. But we're doing rubbish. Have you watched the last 2 games? We were F***ing awful. It's a team playing with no confidence and no structure. It isn't people liking to moan. Were doing ****. We are near the bottom of the league not the top. This thread should be entitled burying your head in the sand.

Click to expand...

Rotherham were a lot more awful (thanks to how we played), we still should have won, if we had scored they would have had to come at us (with nothing) and they wouldn't have been able to park the bus.

Cardiff was littered with individual errors, what is Wilder meant to do about those? He dropped McNair and Diksteele played against Rotherham (and played well). The keeper should have saved at least one, maybe two, and he wouldn't have been playing if Steffen was fit. Fry was not great against Cardiff either, and he would not have been playing centre-back if Lenihan was fit.

The players should know the structure by now. Yes, confidence will be low, due to the position.

We've had a pretty big overhaul, we're 5 points off 5th, we've three starting players to come back, a two-week break, and 36 games left, I don't think there's much need for panic.

Where we should be finishing after the transfer window disappointment is still obtainable. It wasn't Wilder who let Tav out the door and replaced him with two players who couldn't get a game in the championship for any other side, never mind a top-half one.

We were terrible against Rotherham. They're a really poor team. Our lads looked frightened to receive the ball. We are playing badly and entirely deserve to be where we are in the table. We have been unlucky in a couple of games. But what we are seeing here is results not matching people's expectations.

We see Chris Wilders past results. We expect him to continue to do well here. But our results are poor. Rather than revaluating our original position we dig in, and try to rearrange the facts to fit our view. We should have scored. We should have made subs. We should have not made silly mistakes. The ref should have been better. The table is lying.

I certainly hope our manager is having a better time than some of our fans in determining the reality of the situation. Rather than just blithely pointing to the xg table and doing the same thing over and over in the hope it will get better.

It's a confidence issue at the moment. The squads a little imbalanced but what you see is players who have shipped a load of goals and are unsure of themselves. I am hoping the manager can get them out of this death spiral as we know they are capable of performing well. His latter record at sheff utd does not fill me with confidence he can do this.

Watch us when we pass the ball around the back. Does the player receiving the ball expect to receive it, control it with one touch and pass it with his second. Or does he seem almost surprised he's being passed the ball. Does he have to stop doing what he was doing to receive the ball. Does he take several touches before passing it to another defender five feet away that does not progress the play at all.

Andy_W said:

Rotherham were a lot more awful (thanks to how we played), we still should have won, if we had scored they would have had to come at us (with nothing) and they wouldn't have been able to park the bus.

Cardiff was littered with individual errors, what is Wilder meant to do about those? He dropped McNair and Diksteele played against Rotherham (and played well). The keeper should have saved at least one, maybe two, and he wouldn't have been playing if Steffen was fit. Fry was not great against Cardiff either, and he would not have been playing centre-back if Lenihan was fit.

The players should know the structure by now. Yes, confidence will be low, due to the position.

We've had a pretty big overhaul, we're 5 points off 5th, we've three starting players to come back, a two-week break, and 36 games left, I don't think there's much need for panic.

Where we should be finishing after the transfer window disappointment is still obtainable. It wasn't Wilder who let Tav out the door and replaced him with two players who couldn't get a game in the championship for any other side, never mind a top-half one.

Click to expand...

We should have won. We didn't. We were three goals down at half time to Cardiff. It wasn't individual errors. It was eleven players, playing poorly, playing without confidence, playing terribly. Rather than trying to fit reality to your narrative why not approach it with a more open mind.

But no. Should. Should. Should should.....

Andy_W said:

Woodgate was wrong, unless he thought we were one place out, maybe that's what he meant.

View attachment 44670
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.

Click to expand...

I guess that tells us that the difference this season and the Woodgate season is massive, we are a much better side than that season

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:

We were terrible against Rotherham. They're a really poor team.

Click to expand...

No way were we terrible. The game is played in 4 phases. With the ball we didn't do enough to create enough high quality chances, still did just about enough to win though.

Without the ball we were excellent, stopped a half decent side from creating any chances

Positive transition, we were far too slow, didn't take advantage of it, not that we had many positive transitions

negative transition, it's been our achilles heel this season, but we were very good in this phase.


Terrible would be bad in all 4 phases, we weren't.

BoroMart said:

No way were we terrible. The game is played in 4 phases. With the ball we didn't do enough to create enough high quality chances, still did just about enough to win though.

Without the ball we were excellent, stopped a half decent side from creating any chances

Positive transition, we were far too slow, didn't take advantage of it, not that we had many positive transitions

negative transition, it's been our achilles heel this season, but we were very good in this phase.


Terrible would be bad in all 4 phases, we weren't.

Click to expand...

"Excellent" is a bit if a stretch. They were in league 1 last season.

TeaCider said:

Like West Brom in that list, I've watched 4 of their games this season and they've had huge chances in all of them and squandered them, and somehow ended up drawing each match.

If their finishing improved they'd shoot right up the table.

That obviously doesn't change the fact that their finishing is poor.

Click to expand...

It's a pattern for them, they did the same last season. Grant is an awful finisher and Dike has been a disaster of a signing.

Why do people think that you have to either use xG or look at league position? Both are relevant.

We are 3rd bottom because we are missing easy chances which would normally be taken, but conceding chances which wouldn't normally be scored from. The stats back this up and provide a basis for coaches to work on (along with a lot of other data).

It would be a different issue if the points and gd were exactly the same as now, but we were scoring almost every chance we got whilst our opponents were missing loads. For me that would be a bigger problem.

Do you think looking at games that way is a new thing for coaches?

BoroMart said:

No way were we terrible. The game is played in 4 phases. With the ball we didn't do enough to create enough high quality chances, still did just about enough to win though.

Without the ball we were excellent, stopped a half decent side from creating any chances

Positive transition, we were far too slow, didn't take advantage of it, not that we had many positive transitions

negative transition, it's been our achilles heel this season, but we were very good in this phase.


Terrible would be bad in all 4 phases, we weren't.

Click to expand...

I thought we were terrible. I think they were a poor team. I thought we looked really shaky on the ball. Had we been playing a decent team I think we would have been a couple of goals down at half time. Then you might have seen a better performance. Nothing to lose Boro are a much better team than nil nil Boro.

uncle_rico said:

"Excellent" is a bit if a stretch. They were in league 1 last season.

Click to expand...

You can only work with what you are playing against, we made zero mistakes. That's excellent. They may have been in league one last season, but they're still a decent enough champ outfit, they're comfortably beating the lower champ sides from last year like Reading, Blackpool and Birmingham, and have only lost once. They're a championship side on merit, and seemingly a good midtable one. Very harsh to talk them down simply because of where they came from.

Laughing said:

xG is not a good stat for gauging overall performance of a team. It is, probably, the best we have to gauge how close a game was in-play. However, when taken in isolation it is very misleading and I would caution against taking it at face value without understanding how it is calculated. Some problems with xG:

Let's look at a simple example, penalty kicks in-game. The xG given by Opta for a penalty kick is 0.76. Globally the chance of scoring from a penalty is 0.754 so 0.76 looks like a good average. However penalties in the prem for example have a 70% conversion rate. I suspect because the keepers are better, I don't know. In international football the conversion rate goes up to 78.74. I suspect because of the variation in the abilities of the keepers faced.

the standard deviation on international penalty kicks is 37.6. This is huge and demonstrates that it is quite difficult to assign a number to the chances of scoring a penalty. It becomes much more complex in open play.

In March this year Opta pretty much dumped their xG methodology and released a new version as the old one was poor, by their own admission. It did not account for the position of the goalkeeper was the main reason given, but there were other frailties in it.

Opta use a combination of AI optical recognition and a human analyst. Not sure how well their analysts are trained or how much leaway they get.

Overall, there isn't really anything better, but it has to be analysed in tandem with other stats. We will know more by the end of this season on whether the Opta improvements make the statistic more reliable.

When gauging who will win a game of football, predictively, the most accurate statistic is relative position in the table. It's a simple stat, but works better than xG. I suspect wages of the 11 on the pitch is a better indicator of relative chances of the two teams, but I have no idea whether this is the case or not. Points per game over 4 and 8 games give better predictive performance than xG. I suspect because they capture the general wellbeing, physical and mental of the respective teams.

It's a team invasion sport and it is why it is difficult to predict. It's also why it is fantastic.

Does that answer your question @Andy_W as to why I don't like xG.

Click to expand...

It's good at gauging chance creation, and chances are generally what matter, as the better the chances, the higher the probability to score, all things (ability wise) assumed being equal, but of course this varies.

It means more over more games, but if we finish 21st and top the xG stats then it will probably be the first time there's even been such a disparity. It's not an exact science, far from it, but it's more reliable than feel or guesswork. The largest disparity over a teams position is normally around 8-10 places over the course of a season, most teams are within 3/4 places. We won't finish below mid table doing what we are, it's highly improbable over that many games. If it does end up that way, then I'll just accept it, providing what I'm seeing matches the stats (which for me it does up to now). I have pretty much agreed or predicted the xG range for most games quite accurately.

International penalties for stats are not worth a grain of salt for standard deviation, not considering all games at least, as the difference in standard and pressure is absolutely massive. Over a 46 game championship season the levels of players and keepers are a hell of a lot closer.

Yes, they have updated it (now consider about 30 metrics and dumped "big chances"), so it will certainly be more accurate (as they will have done a back analysis), but even over former years, team position and results correlated pretty well with xG, a lot better than any other metric.

I'd expect Opta Analysts have good knowledge, probably more than or similar to a weekly football fan, and not subject to the same bias or pessimism.

I wouldn't use xG as a prediction tool, it won't factor for who is playing, injuries, form or one-off events, but looking back it works well and, better than someone saying we lost, so we played crap, it's not that simple. Prediction of individual games is tough enough as it is, but things like xG and other stats become more and more accurate over time.

Similar to crosses and the like, we've had 3rd most crosses I think (missed crosses don't count as chances), and conceded the 5th least.

Save % is 3rd lowest, shots on target % second lowest, I'd expect a lot better from our players in those areas (the crucial ones).

We're not giving much away (even with the individual errors), but conceding too much, and we're not putting enough away. I suppose the "playing well" or as expected part is the bit in the middle, stopping chances and crosses and creating them, and we're doing these bits well, especially in the earlier games.

Rofesleg said:

Why do people think that you have to either use xG or look at league position? Both are relevant.

We are 3rd bottom because we are missing easy chances which would normally be taken, but conceding chances which wouldn't normally be scored from. The stats back this up and provide a basis for coaches to work on (along with a lot of other data).

It would be a different issue if the points and gd were exactly the same as now, but we were scoring almost every chance we got whilst our opponents were missing loads. For me that would be a bigger problem.

Do you think looking at games that way is a new thing for coaches?

Click to expand...

agreed although the biggest is issue is easily the goals we are conceding rather than big chances being missed, there are 3 or 4 big chances, but you won't get them all. It's the poor goals, and poor goals vs xGA performance that's hurt us

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:

I thought we were terrible. I think they were a poor team. I thought we looked really shaky on the ball. Had we been playing a decent team I think we would have been a couple of goals down at half time. Then you might have seen a better performance. Nothing to lose Boro are a much better team than nil nil Boro.

Click to expand...

Of course we were a bit shakey on the ball, we're low on confidence. Harsh to say they're not a decent team, are they not in this league on merit and top half on merit?

We gave them absolutely no opportunities, not sure how you can summise a better team would have scored a couple, because we defended what was in front of us well, if we'd played liverpool, yeah they'd have too much quality, West Brom or Sheff U, meh.

Are we a better team than a 0-0 to this rotherham, probably, but we have to look at all aspects of the game, we weren't poor defensively. In fact we were strong for once. We didn't fluke the cleansheet