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.How do they calculate xG?
It's a hell of a lot more relevant than it is not relevant, hence why every professional sports team uses the data, along with running stats and other performance metrics.Wilder and the lads printing this out as we speak to hold up during a lap of honour next home game.
Completely disagree.Meaningless stat.
It means we're creating more and better chances than the opposition are, a lot more, so puts to bed daft talk like Rotherham deserved a point or whatever, or we didn't deserve to beat Reading, Sheff Utd or Stoke, assuming our finishing is equal standard to the divisional average.As a stat it doesn’t mean anything does it. We are sitting in the bottom 3.
Slightly similar to us last year, but we only finished 4 places lower than predicted. Everyone is happy to agree why that was though, we couldn't hit a barn door, as our strikers were poor, and couldn't keep the ball out enough because we had Lumley in goal.Completely disagree.
I think it's a good way of seeing how a team is performing.
We have been very unlucky in a lot of games and xG table shows this.
The first 4 league games we could've easily had 12 points, instead of 3, and the xG table showed this.
It's just a way of eliminating variance out of football.
I remember a year or two ago, Brighton's xG was top 5 and their xA was top 3 I think, and yet they were around 13th in the table, purely because of unfortunate events during games, some very poor finishing from their strikers (most notably Maupay) and some bad luck...fast forward 18 months or so and the process has continued, and yet the table actually shows them to be in the top 6 (based on the fixtures they've played more than anything).
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.
Not really, it indicate how creative you are and how many opportunities you concede and of course the quality of those chances. It quantifies what we see with our eyes. That baring some stupid mistakes we would be much closer to the top.As a stat it doesn’t mean anything does it. We are sitting in the bottom 3.
It's actually very scientific as it is literally based on recorded data from a massive sample size.Remember when Muniz chested the ball by the dugout and then tried to lump it towards goal? Based on xG, he would expect to score from doing that one time in every 12.5 attempts.
Should being the operative word. Unfortunately we are in the bottom 3 because we have average players, terrible recruitment and a stubborn manager.Not really, it indicate how creative you are and how many opportunities you concede and of course the quality of those chances. It quantifies what we see with our eyes. That baring some stupid mistakes we would be much closer to the top.