xG table so far this season

All the table is showing is that we are consistently making more chances than the opposition.

That is true.

I have rarely seen a boro team control and create like the current one. But we don't take our chances.

The question is... is it because all our attacking players are terrible... or... because we have been a bit unlucky and our attacking players have hit a bad patch at the same time.

I'm of the feeling - if we continue to control and create like we are - the goals will come and we will go on a dominant run like we have seen several times in Carrick's reign.
Agreed our forwards are good but not brilliant. They will go through spells of low confidence and missed chances and high confidence and banging them in. It’ll turn soon and we will still end up between 5th and 8th
 
The game stats say we’re controlling, we’re creating but we need a bit more scoring quality on the pitch.

If we can stay within 6 points of the top 2 by January, then we go for it. If we can someone to play that 10 role properly we’re a different side and could easy go and win 15 games in the second half of the season.

For me if we’re within 6 points we go get Akpom on loan for 6 months with an agreement to buy back at 7m if we’re promoted, or we try and find a new Gaston type that’s too good for this league. Six month loan and go for it
 
Tell me you are frightened of the intellectualising of football without telling me you are frightened of the intellectualisation of football 😂
I think that's a bit unfair mart. If maths isn't your thing, stats are always going to seem a bit weird.
 
I think that's a bit unfair mart. If maths isn't your thing, stats are always going to seem a bit weird.
If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it automatically nonsense, in fact to claim things you don’t understand are nonsense is fear of knowledge and learning
 
If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it automatically nonsense, in fact to claim things you don’t understand are nonsense is fear of knowledge and learning
Why do you keep on insisting that because someone doesn’t advocate, like, enjoy something it means they don’t understand it? We have had this discussion about VAR. Maybe some people understand these things perfectly well but think - certainly in terms of xG and a lot of other statistics currently being pumped out by the football content media, often without context and used instead of actual from a pundit - that it’s not really for them. It’s the insistence that others don’t understand it that gets me.

The use of stats in football discourse at the moment is incredibly tedious. It’s as dull as a 6 pack of damp doylies. And I understand very well what they are, what they are used to try and show, etc, I just think it’s absolutely boring beyond belief. People are allowed to think that without being accused of not understand something.
 
Why do you keep on insisting that because someone doesn’t advocate, like, enjoy something it means they don’t understand it? We have had this discussion about VAR. Maybe some people understand these things perfectly well but think - certainly in terms of xG and a lot of other statistics currently being pumped out by the football content media, often without context and used instead of actual from a pundit - that it’s not really for them. It’s the insistence that others don’t understand it that gets me.

The use of stats in football discourse at the moment is incredibly tedious. It’s as dull as a 6 pack of damp doylies. And I understand very well what they are, what they are used to try and show, etc, I just think it’s absolutely boring beyond belief. People are allowed to think that without being accused of not understand something.
To be fair one poster on this thread has described it as a load of bollox and another has called it "statistical nonsense".

They're not saying they find it boring, they're essentially saying that the stat is meaningless.

Yet the professionals in the game, coaches, football analysts etc beg to differ.

People might well misuse the stat, but a lot of the people who go off on one at its very mention aren't even arguing that. They're arguing its a con. Which suggests to me they don't really understand it.
 
To be fair one poster on this thread has described it as a load of bollox and another has called it "statistical nonsense".

They're not saying they find it boring, they're essentially saying that the stat is meaningless.

Yet the professionals in the game, coaches, football analysts etc beg to differ.

People might well misuse the stat, but a lot of the people who go off on one at its very mention aren't even arguing that. They're arguing its a con. Which suggests to me they don't really understand it.
Kieron Scott gave an interview a couple of weeks back where he said the use of stats in football is overblown by those not working within the game. I think broadcasters and many supporters latch onto them and use them to try and make themselves look like they have a deeper understanding of football than other supporters. It’s exacerbated by people who would’ve been working in the City 20 years ago but now write for the Athletic and team up with each other to pump out content about Villa’s pressing patterns or Chelsea’s ‘passing lanes’.

Meanwhile Pep strings four central defenders across the defence and hits the big man to create chaos and open up the space, and Arteta’s Arsenal set up camp on the edge of their own box and sh*thouse their way to a point like they were Newport playing at Liverpool in a quarter final.

In a few years time we’ll look back at this period and wonder what’s on earth we were doing.
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep on insisting that because someone doesn’t advocate, like, enjoy something it means they don’t understand it? We have had this discussion about VAR. Maybe some people understand these things perfectly well but think - certainly in terms of xG and a lot of other statistics currently being pumped out by the football content media, often without context and used instead of actual from a pundit - that it’s not really for them. It’s the insistence that others don’t understand it that gets me.

The use of stats in football discourse at the moment is incredibly tedious. It’s as dull as a 6 pack of damp doylies. And I understand very well what they are, what they are used to try and show, etc, I just think it’s absolutely boring beyond belief. People are allowed to think that without being accused of not understand something.
I answered laughing assumption that it’s because “maths isn’t their thing”.

You might find stats tedious, but that doesn’t mean they’re nonsense, they’re nonsense in the hands of people that don’t understand them…a fool with a tool is still a fool, but in the hands of people that can interpret them and make fact based analytical decisions they’re a major part of todays game, the more professionalised game that some people fear.

If you find stats dull that’s fine, but that doesn’t make them nonsense at all, it just makes your commentary on them nonsense. It’s entirely your choice if you choose to ignore data and go with gut feel, as a scientist I will always be evidence based
 
I answered laughing assumption that it’s because “maths isn’t their thing”.

You might find stats tedious, but that doesn’t mean they’re nonsense, they’re nonsense in the hands of people that don’t understand them…a fool with a tool is still a fool, but in the hands of people that can interpret them and make fact based analytical decisions they’re a major part of todays game, the more professionalised game that some people fear.
Some stats are more useful than others.
 
Stats like xG never tell the full story or show the actual reality. Does an alleged great scoring opportunity take account of brilliant goalkeeping, great defending, the lack of quality of the person striking the ball, the bump in the turf, the wind direction, the state of mind of the individuals involved, the angle of approach, the noise of the crowd, the studs in the boots, even the quality of the data aficionado in making an interpretation in the first place, is their judgement always correct, the computer says no. Some love it some hate it, but whilst data can be useful, it is not always as reliable as what can often easily be gleaned visually or through lived experience. The fact that some like me think stuff like xG is mainly bollox does not mean I’m ignorant about it or that I think all data is unnecessary, those promoting that thought will have their own prejudice and unconscious bias they should reflect on.

The real issue is what may work for one human doesn’t necessarily for another. The stats industry in general is bloated and used to justify roles, jobs, decisions, actions, sometimes for good, sometimes not, but how a person chooses to interpret said data and what use a human decides on how or even if to use it and for what means, is a whole different ball game.
 
Kieron Scott gave an interview a couple of weeks back where he said the use of stats in football is overblown by those not working within the game. I think broadcasters and many supporters latch onto them and use them to try and make themselves look like they have a deeper understanding of football than other supporters. It’s exacerbated by people who would’ve been working in the City 20 years ago but now write for the Athletic and team up with each other to pump out content about Villa’s pressing patterns or Chelsea’s ‘passing lanes’.

Meanwhile Pep strings four central defenders across the defence and hits the big man to create chaos and open up the space, and Arteta’s Arsenal set up camp on the edge of their own box and sh*thouse their way to a point like they were Newport playing at Liverpool in a quarter final.

In a few years time we’ll look back at this period and wonder what’s on earth we were doing.
Probably true that some pundits/analysts overuse them and put too emphasis on them (or the wrong ones).

I don't think Scott was saying stats aren't extensively used by clubs though. Because they clearly are and will continue to be so. As they should.
 
If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it automatically nonsense, in fact to claim things you don’t understand are nonsense is fear of knowledge and learning
Not sure that is true either. You can add up, understand the concept of stats and believe your know what they mean. It's a skill in and if itself to be able to interpret stats meaningfully. Some folks probably don't know what they don't know.
 
Stats like xG never tell the full story or show the actual reality. Does an alleged great scoring opportunity take account of brilliant goalkeeping, great defending, the lack of quality of the person striking the ball, the bump in the turf, the wind direction, the state of mind of the individuals involved, the angle of approach, the noise of the crowd, the studs in the boots, even the quality of the data aficionado in making an interpretation in the first place, is their judgement always correct, the computer says no. Some love it some hate it, but whilst data can be useful, it is not always as reliable as what can often easily be gleaned visually or through lived experience. The fact that some like me think stuff like xG is mainly bollox does not mean I’m ignorant about it or that I think all data is unnecessary, those promoting that thought will have their own prejudice and unconscious bias they should reflect on.

The real issue is what may work for one human doesn’t necessarily for another. The stats industry in general is bloated and used to justify roles, jobs, decisions, actions, sometimes for good, sometimes not, but how a person chooses to interpret said data and what use a human decides on how or even if to use it and for what means, is a whole different ball game.
Not wishing to be insulting but your post kinda illustrates my point.

Stats are not and cannot take account of every variable, particularly in an invasion sport.

You accumulate enough data you can draw general conclusions from them despite what they are missing.
 
At what stage does the expected goals start to go down given the reality of the actual goals scored?
 
Back
Top